Page 1 of 78

DOE Review Release 01/12/2017 

Site Profile for the Kansas City Plant

ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Rev. 01

Effective Date: 01/06/2017

Supersedes: Revision 00 PC-1 

Subject Expert(s): Jackson R. Ellis, Richard J. Traub

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Jackson R. Ellis, Document Owner

Approval Date: 12/21/2016

Concurrence: Wade C. Morris Signature on File for

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 12/21/2016

Concurrence: Scott R. Siebert Signature on File for 

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 12/21/2016

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 12/20/2016

Approval: Signature on File

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Approval Date: 01/06/2017

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION. 

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 2 of 78

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

05/31/2005 00 New document to establish the technical basis for the development of 

a radiation exposure profile for the Kansas City Plant. First approved 

issue. No training required. Initiated by Donald E. Bihl.

01/06/2006 00 PC-1 Approved page change revision. Incorporates changes for 

environmental ambient external and internal doses for unmonitored, 

non-radiological workers as a result of formal internal review and 

informal OCAS comments. Page change includes new content added 

to pages 7 and 22 (Sections 1.0 and 5.1.4). Removed definition of 

unmonitored worker on page 26 (Section 6.4.1). Minor revisions were 

made to pages 17, 18, 19, and 23 (Sections 4.0, 5.0, 5.1.2, 5.2 and 

6.2.1). As a result of NIOSH formal review, incorporates Attachment 

A on pages 43–46, into Site Profile. This attachment describes 

technical basis of ambient environmental dose estimate for 

unmonitored workers. No sections were omitted. Retraining is not 

required. Initiated by Jack J. Fix. Approval:

Document Owner:

Signature on File 12/19/2005

Jack J. Fix, TBD Team Leader

Signature on File 12/20/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Signature on File 12/28/2005

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Signature on File 01/06/2006

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

01/06/2017 01 Revision initiated to incorporate changes to include information from 

the SEC-0210 Petition Evaluation Report and updated medical X-ray 

organ dose determination using guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 

Affected all sections. Expanded on the Machining Area operations, 

ThO2 powder sources, and to expand on Mg-Th operational periods. 

Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH review comments. 

Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. Training required: As 

determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by Jackson R. Ellis.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 3 of 78

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 9

1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 Site Description...................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Process Descriptions.................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Natural Uranium Operations......................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Magnesium-Thorium Alloy Machining........................................................... 13

2.2.3 Depleted Uranium Operations...................................................................... 14

2.2.4 Thorium Oxide Powder Operations .............................................................. 14

2.2.5 Tritium Work and Operations ....................................................................... 14

2.2.6 Nickel Plating ............................................................................................... 14

2.2.7 Decontamination and Decommissioning ...................................................... 14

2.3 Occupational Safety Program..................................................................................... 14

2.4 Radiation Monitoring Program .................................................................................... 15

2.5 Radiation Sources ...................................................................................................... 15

2.6 Radiation Detection Instrumentation........................................................................... 18

2.7 Radiological Records.................................................................................................. 18

3.0 Occupational Medical Dose.................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Examination Frequency.............................................................................................. 20

3.2 Equipment and Techniques ........................................................................................ 21

3.3 Organ Dose Estimates................................................................................................ 22

3.4 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................. 25

4.0 Occupational Environmental Dose ......................................................................................... 26

4.1 External Ambient Dose............................................................................................... 26

4.2 Internal Environmental Dose ...................................................................................... 26

5.0 Occupational Internal Dose.................................................................................................... 27

5.1 Depleted Uranium....................................................................................................... 27

5.1.1 Physical and Radiological Characteristics .................................................... 27

5.1.2 Workplace Monitoring .................................................................................. 28

5.1.3 Bioassay ...................................................................................................... 28

5.1.4 Unmonitored Workers .................................................................................. 32

5.2 Other Nuclides............................................................................................................ 33

5.2.1 Natural Uranium Operations, May 1, 1950, to February 28, 1955................. 33

5.2.2 Uranium Postoperations Period, March 1, 1955, to August 31, 1959............ 34

5.2.3 Uranium Postoperations Period, January 1, 1972, to May 31, 1984 ............. 34

5.2.4 Magnesium-Thorium Exposures, August 23, 1961, to March 31, 1963, 

and August 28, 1970, to December 31, 1977 ............................................... 37

5.2.5 Routine Radiological Waste Handlers and Decontamination Workers.......... 40

5.2.6 Thorium Oxide Powder Operations .............................................................. 40

5.2.7 Tritium Operations........................................................................................ 40

5.2.7.1 Hi-Lo Switch Plates, 1963 to 1968............................................. 40

5.2.7.2 Manufacturing of Tritium Monitors, 1959 to 1975....................... 41
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 4 of 78

5.2.8 Nickel Plating ............................................................................................... 42

5.2.9 Decontamination and Decommissioning ...................................................... 42

5.3 Recycled Uranium ...................................................................................................... 43

5.4 Incidents..................................................................................................................... 44

6.0 Occupational External Dose................................................................................................... 45

6.1 Basis of Comparison .................................................................................................. 45

6.2 Workplace External Radiation Fields .......................................................................... 45

6.2.1 Beta Radiation ............................................................................................. 45

6.2.2 Photon Radiation.......................................................................................... 45

6.2.3 Neutron Radiation ........................................................................................ 46

6.3 Dosimeter Technology................................................................................................ 46

6.3.1 Beta/Photon Dosimeters .............................................................................. 46

6.3.2 Neutron Dosimeters ..................................................................................... 46

6.3.3 Dosimetry Techniques and Exchange Frequencies...................................... 47

6.4 Dose Reconstruction .................................................................................................. 47

6.4.1 Monitored Dose Records.............................................................................. 47

6.4.2 Potential Unmonitored Dose ........................................................................ 48

6.4.3 Potential Missed Dose for Monitored Workers.............................................. 49

6.4.4 Neutron Dose Adjustments .......................................................................... 49

6.4.5 Adjustments to Recorded Deep Dose .......................................................... 49

6.4.6 Radiation Dose Fraction............................................................................... 50

6.5 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................. 50

6.6 Organ Dose................................................................................................................ 51

7.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 51

References ........................................................................................................................................ 52

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 62

ATTACHMENT A EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE 

ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE ............................................................................ 67

ATTACHMENT B EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE ....................... 72

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2-1 History of facility operations ................................................................................................... 11

2-2 Categorization of workers in special physical examination program working with radiation .... 15

2-3 Radiation sources and predominant radiation types ............................................................... 16

2-4 Typical RGDs.........................................................................................................................17

2-5 Radiation detection equipment list.......................................................................................... 17

3-1 Frequency of occupational X-ray screening ........................................................................... 21

3-2 Organ dose equivalents for PA chest X-rays.......................................................................... 23

3-3 Skin dose guidance and skin dose equivalents for PA chest X-rays....................................... 23

3-4 IREP dose distributions and statistical parameters for the dose to the B-lymphocytes ........... 25

5-1 Mass and specific constituent activity in mixture of DU........................................................... 27

5-2 Measured alpha contamination levels, 1962 to 1969.............................................................. 28

5-3 Measured results and statistical parameters of DU in workplace air....................................... 29
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 5 of 78

5-4 Measured annual results, statistical parameters, and chronic intakes of recorded DU in 

urine.......................................................................................................................................30

5-5 Number of recorded bioassay measurements and average of measurements for 1959 

through 1971..........................................................................................................................31

5-6 Intake rates for uranium machining ........................................................................................ 34

5-7 Intake rates for uranium machining and material handling, Departments 3A and 49X, 

March 1, 1955, to August 31, 1959 ........................................................................................ 34

5-8 Intake rates for uranium machining and material handling, Departments 3A and 49X, 

January 1, 1972, to May 31, 1984.......................................................................................... 35

5-9 Alpha intake rates from magnesium-thorium operations, August 23, 1961, to March 31, 

1963, and August 28, 1970, to December 31, 1977 ............................................................... 38

5-10 Alpha ratios............................................................................................................................38

5-11 Annual inhalation intake rates for triple-separated thorium..................................................... 38

5-12 Annual ingestion intake rates for triple-separated thorium...................................................... 39

5-13 Annual inhalation intake rates for natural thorium................................................................... 39

5-14 ingestion intake rates for natural thorium................................................................................ 39

5-15 Alpha intake rates from D&D of uranium operations areas, May 29, 1984, to November 

7, 1984, and August 15, 1986, to September 3, 1986 ............................................................ 43

5-16 Activity fraction of contaminant in recycled uranium ............................................................... 44

6-1 Personnel dosimetry systems ................................................................................................ 47

6-2 Neutron unmonitored dose..................................................................................................... 48

6-3 Potential missed dose for monitored workers......................................................................... 49

6-4 Neutron dose fractions and associated ICRP 60 correction factors ........................................ 50

6-5 Beta, photon, and neutron radiation energies and percentages for estimating dose to 

whole-body organs, 1949 to 2004 .......................................................................................... 50

A-1 IREP input for ambient external dose calculation ................................................................... 68

A-2 Laboratories where workers handled DU ............................................................................... 68

A-3 Personnel dosimeter control dosimeter data .......................................................................... 69

A-4 GM measured air concentration for IMBA input for ambient internal dose calculation ............ 70

B-1 Annual external deep doses................................................................................................... 75

B-2 Annual external shallow doses............................................................................................... 76

B-3 Periods and MDLs for imputation models............................................................................... 78

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Site map.................................................................................................................................11
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 6 of 78

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AMAD activity median aerodynamic diameter

AP anterior-posterior

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer

Bq becquerel

cGy centigray

Ci curie

cm centimeter

cpm counts per minute

d day

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

DCF dose conversion factor

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOELAP DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

dpm disintegrations per minute

DU depleted uranium 

DXT density times thickness

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

ENSD entrance skin dose equivalent

EXSD exit skin exposure

ft foot

g gram

gal gallon

GE General Electric Company

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

Hp(d) personnel dose equivalent at depth d in tissue

hr hour

HVL half-value layer

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

ICRU International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

in. inch

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

KCP Kansas City Plant

keV kiloelectron-volt, 1,000 electron-volts

kVp peak kilovoltage

LAT lateral

lb pound

LOD limit of detection
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 7 of 78

m meter

mA milliampere

mCi millicurie

MDL minimum detectable level

Mg-Th magnesium-thorium alloy

min minute

mL milliliter

mm millimeter

mR milliroentgen

mrem millirem

n neutron

NCRP National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NTA nuclear track emulsion, type A

OCAS Office (now Division) of Compensation Analysis and Support

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

OSL optical stimulated luminescence

PA posterior-anterior

pCi picocurie

PIC pocket ionization chamber

R roentgen

RADEC) RAdiation DEtection Capability

ROT rotational

RSD remote skin dose

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

TBD technical basis document

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

U.S.C. United States Code

yr year

μCi microcurie

μg microgram

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 8 of 78

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions at particular Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) 

facilities or categories of DOE or AWE facilities. They will be revised in the event additional relevant 

information is obtained about the affected DOE or AWE facility(ies). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petitions and the completion 

of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used to refer to an area, building, or group of buildings that 

served a specific purpose at a DOE or AWE facility. It does not mean nor should it be equated to an 

“AWE facility” or a “DOE facility.” The terms AWE and DOE facility are defined in sections 7384l(5) 

and (12) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), respectively. An AWE facility means “a facility, owned by an atomic weapons employer, 

that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation 

and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384l(5). On the other hand, a DOE facility is defined as “any building, structure, or premise, 

including the grounds upon which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which 

operations are, or have been, conducted by, or on behalf of, the [DOE] (except for buildings, 

structures, premises, grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program);” 

and with regard to which DOE has or had a proprietary interest, or “entered into a contract with an 

entity to provide management and operation, management and integration, environmental 

remediation services, construction, or maintenance services.” 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12). The Department 

of Energy (DOE) determines whether a site meets the statutory definition of an AWE facility and the 

Department of Labor (DOL) determines if a site is a DOE facility and, if it is, designates it as such.

Accordingly, a Part B claim for benefits must be based on an energy employee’s eligible employment 

and occupational radiation exposure at a DOE or AWE facility during the facility’s designated time 

period and location (i.e., covered employee). After DOL determines that a claim meets the eligibility 

requirements under EEOICPA, DOL transmits the claim to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction. 

EEOICPA provides, among other things, guidance on eligible employment and the types of radiation 

exposure to be included in an individual dose reconstruction. Under EEOICPA, eligible employment 

at a DOE facility includes individuals who are or were employed by DOE and its predecessor 

agencies, as well as their contractors and subcontractors at the facility. Unlike the abovementioned 

statutory provisions on DOE facility definitions that contain specific descriptions or exclusions on 

facility designation, the statutory provision governing types of exposure to be included in dose 

reconstructions for DOE covered employees only requires that such exposures be incurred in the 

performance of duty. As such, NIOSH broadly construes radiation exposures incurred in the 

performance of duty to include all radiation exposures received as a condition of employment at 

covered DOE facilities in its dose reconstructions for covered employees. For covered employees at 

DOE facilities, individual dose reconstructions may also include radiation exposures related to the 

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program at DOE facilities, if applicable. No efforts are made to determine 

the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose reconstruction.

NIOSH does not consider the following types of exposure as those incurred in the performance of 

duty as a condition of employment at a DOE facility. Therefore these exposures are not included in 

dose reconstructions for covered employees (NIOSH 2010):

• Background radiation, including radiation from naturally occurring radon present in 

conventional structures

• Radiation from X-rays received in the diagnosis of injuries or illnesses or for therapeutic 

reasons
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 9 of 78

1.1 PURPOSE

This site profile provides information about the Kansas City Plant (KCP) in Kansas City, Missouri. 

This information may be used in dose reconstruction.

1.2 SCOPE 

Section 2.0 describes KCP and its operations. Section 3.0 discusses occupational medical doses 

from X-ray examinations, and Section 4.0 discusses onsite environmental doses. Sections 5.0 and 

6.0 describe internal and external dosimetry, respectively. Attributions and annotations, indicated by 

bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, justification, or clarification of the associated 

information, are presented in Section 7.0.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 10 of 78

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Navy built the first facilities at the site during World War II to assemble engines for fighter 

planes. Pratt-Whitney operated the site from early 1943 until September 2, 1945. In 1947, 

Westinghouse began leasing the facility, and the Fairfax Storage Company used part of the building 

as a warehouse for tires, raw rubber, sugar, and lumber. 

In 1948, the Bendix Corporation subleased from Westinghouse the warehouse portion of the plant on 

the eastern side, because the AEC had entered into a contract with Bendix on November 5, 1948 for 

the performance by the Contractor of certain work involving management and operation of 

Government-owned facilities and the performance of work therein. Bendix began work for the AEC at 

the site in 1949 and continued to do so when the Navy terminated its lease with Westinghouse on 

June 30, 1961. Ownership of 122.05 acres of land, with improvements thereon at the Bannister 

Complex was transferred to ERDA, effective September 30, 1976.

Over the years, KCP shared the site with the Federal Aviation Administration, Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service, U.S. Marine Corps, General Services Administration, Internal Revenue Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Logistics Support Center. Table 2-1 

summarizes the history of the facility, and Figure 2-1 shows the layout of the site.

DOE moved the operations at KCP to a new location, the Kansas City National Security Campus in 

downtown Kansas City, beginning January 2013 and continuing through July 2014. (HFMT 2016).

KCP was a major operational facility administered by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and 

Technologies/Kansas City. KCP produced nonnuclear weapons components for the nuclear weapons 

program. The principal products included arming systems, fusing and firing systems, radars, power

supplies, rubber, plastic and foam parts, and outer casings. KCP was the only DOE facility for 

manufacturing these components (DOE 1997). 

The DOE Kansas City Office reported directly to DOE headquarters and had line management 

responsibility for manufacturing nonnuclear components. In recent years, DOE relocated additional 

project roles from the Mound Site, Pinellas Plant, and Rocky Flats Plant to KCP (Reis 1998).

2.1 FACILITIES

KCP consisted of 37 buildings with about 2.9 million ft2

. The Main Manufacturing Building, 

constructed in 1942, was the largest facility (about 2.7 million ft2

), and housed the key manufacturing 

operations. DOE controlled about 1.75 million ft2 of this building (DOE 2013). The following buildings 

supported the Main Manufacturing Building: Polymer Building, High Power Laboratory, Mold Heating 

and Cooling Building, Plating Building, Technology Transfer Center, Special Processes Building, and 

Manufacturing Support Building.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 11 of 78

Figure 2-1. Site map (Reference).

Table 2-1. History of facility operations. 

Year Event

1943 Pratt-Whitney operated facility from early 1943 until September 2, 1945, to assemble engines for 

Navy fighter planes.

1947 Westinghouse began leasing facility, and Fairfax Storage Company used part of building as 

warehouse for tires, raw rubber, sugar, and lumber.

1948 KCP opens. AEC asks Bendix Corporation to manage facility and begin building nonnuclear 

components for nuclear weapons.

1982 Allied merger. Bendix merges with Allied Corporation.

1984 Allied-Signal merger. Allied merges with Signal companies to form Allied-Signal

1993 Site consolidation. KCP designated as consolidated site for all nonnuclear components for nuclear 

weapons.

1999 Honeywell merger. AlliedSignal merged with Honeywell.

2013 DOE moved the operations at KCP to the Kansas City National Security Campus.

2014 July 2014, DOE operations ceased.

These facilities supported the use of technologies for testing and evaluating engineering 

characteristics of materials and structures. Typical examinations included:
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 12 of 78

• Location of flaws, cracks, chemical contaminations, and internal features; measurement of 

thickness, density, internal dimensions, and percentage contamination; 

• Sorting and identification of alloys;

• Evaluation of heat treatment conditions; and 

• Image enhancement. 

KCP used these methods to evaluate a variety of objects including welds and forgings, foams, 

plastics, adhesives, composites, ceramics, and coatings, electrical components, and mechanical 

assemblies.

Waste management operations at KCP consisted mainly of hazardous nonradiological waste storage 

in preparation for offsite treatment or disposal. Operations sometimes generated small quantities of 

low-level radioactive waste. Some waste is classified for national security reasons due to the nature 

of the generating process or constituents. KCP shipped classified hazardous wastes off site for 

sanitization and reclamation. There was onsite waste disposal in trenches that were cleaned up in 

later D&D efforts (see Section 5.2.9). Treatment operations were limited to industrial wastewater 

pretreatment and selective recycling. 

2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS

In 1949, the Bendix Aviation Corporation began producing electrical and mechanical weapon 

components. This work consisted of metals machining, plastic machining and fabrication, plating, 

electronics and electrical assembly, and mechanical assembly. Much of this work involved materials 

and processes that can result in internal and external radiation exposure to workers. This work 

included operations with natural uranium, depleted uranium (DU), magnesium-thorium alloy (Mg-Th), 

thorium oxide powders, and tritium. In addition, cleanup activities and decontamination and 

decommissioning (D&D) activities had the potential to expose workers to radioactive materials.

2.2.1 Natural Uranium Operations

KCP workers inspected and assembled uranium components, machined uranium slugs, and handled 

uranium billets and ingots in the Main Manufacturing Building in the early 1950s. Starting in May 1950 

and continuing to February 1955, workers in Department 3A inspected and assembled uranium 

components (Schiltz 1963, pp. 2–17).

In February 1951, KCP set up a machine shop in Department 49X. Its purpose was to produce 

1,000 slugs per day to fuel production reactors at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and 

Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, Illinois. It consisted of a smooth finished concrete floor, 

steel panel walls, and an adjacent storeroom. 

KCP received some of the 10-ft-long uranium rod stock for this work from the Lackawanna Test Site in 

New York. For the initial order, KCP produced 45,000 slugs. The plant had a plan to produce 5 tons 

of slugs per month. 

The equipment for making slugs included an 8-in. Springfield bench lathe, a Fay Automatic lathe, a 

Schauer air collet machine, a power cut-off saw, and four Gisholt turret lathes. Two shifts operated 

with 14 machine operators, 3 inspectors, an accountability officer, and a packaging man (Mahaffey 

1952; Author unknown 1951). Straightening of the 1.062-in.-diameter rods occurred before KCP 

received them. There, plant workers:
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 13 of 78

1. Sawed off the bar ends using a power hacksaw.

2. Placed the bars in the Gisholt turret lathes, turned them to 1-in. diameter, and cut them into

8.120-in. lengths.

3. Fed those rough slugs into the Fay Automatic lathe to turn them to the finished diameter of 

0.997-in.

4. Cut a 30-degree cone chamfer. 

5. Generated a 0.050-in. to 0.070-in. radius using the Schauer air collet machine and a mill file.

6. If any rework was necessary, it was performed on the 8-in. Springfield bench lathe (Mahaffey 

1952).

Machining uranium rods into slugs continued in 1952. KCP received unstraightened rods Bethlehem 

Steel had rolled, then sent the slugs they made from those rods to Argonne National Laboratory and 

the Savannah River Site (Author unknown, 1951; Laing 1952). These uranium slug-machining 

operations ended at KCP in December 1952.

Also in 1952, KCP machined and handled natural uranium in the form of billets and ingots for AEC 

facilities at the Lake Ontario Ordinance Works in Youngstown, New York; Allegheny Ludlum in 

Watervliet, New York; and the Fernald site in Harrison, Ohio (Malone 1952a; Malone 1952b; Hobert 

1953; Author unknown 1952).

2.2.2 Magnesium-Thorium Alloy Machining

KCP performed small-scale machining and fabrication of classified items with Mg-Th in the Main 

Manufacturing Building. The first report of Mg-Th machining at KCP was on August 23, 1961, in 

Department 20, and it continued there into 1962 as part of the RAdiation DEtection Capability 

(RADEC) weapons program (Foster 1961; Bendix 1958–2009, pp. 76–79). 

The Mg-Th KCP first used was the alloy known as HK-31 from the Dow Chemical Company with a 

nominal 3% thorium content (Cayou 1958). In March 1963, KCP incorporated Dow’s safety 

recommendations in Magnesium-Thorium (3.5 % Max.), Suggested Care and Handling Methods

(Bendix 1963), then implemented controls for Department 20 machining.

Mg-Th operations were suspended beginning April 1, 1963, and did not begin again until after Health 

Services gave approval on August 28, 1970 (Foster 1970). Inventory information partially confirms 

the suspension of activities during this period. One data source with inventory information beginning 

in 1969 documents the presence of Mg-Th inventory starting in 1971 (Kolbay 2014). Another source, 

the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System, corroborates the inventory information 

and documents the presence of Mg-Th beginning in 1971 (Smock 2014).

On August 28, 1970, KCP restarted operations in Department 20 and the Model Shop (also known as 

Department 851, later renamed Department 823) for the RADEC program (Foster 1970). During the 

second Mg-Th machining campaign (1970 to 1977), the Mg-Th was HM-21A, an alloy with less 

thorium (or 2% rather than 3%) (Tiehen 1987). This campaign involved machining work for U.S. Air 

Force Satellite Subsystems (Bendix 1974, p. 315). The equipment included a Van Norman mill, a 

CSIP Hydroptic 6A vertical-jig boring-machine, a Kearney & Trecker Milwaukee die mill, a Tape lathe, 

and a Heli-arc welder (Foster 1961).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 14 of 78

2.2.3 Depleted Uranium Operations

KCP workers handled DU oxide beginning September 9, 1958, and continuing until 1971. They mixed 

the oxide with an encapsulate and machined and then inspected the product. This work occurred in 

the Machining Area, an area covering 12,000 ft2 in the Main Manufacturing Building. The Machining 

Area was formerly Department 20.

The Machining Area was “cleaned and decommissioned” in the early 1970s after completion of DU 

production operations (Rockwell, 1987, pdf p. 106). However, there remained measurable levels of 

fixed radioactivity in sumps, floor drains, piping, floor expansion joints, and other surface areas. DOE 

remediated this area in phases and completed the final decontamination so that it met industrial 

standards by September 3, 1986.

In 1997, KCP began a new DU program to shape and size DU using an electrochemical process in an 

acid bath.

2.2.4 Thorium Oxide Powder Operations

KCP workers performed laboratory analysis and solution preparation work with thorium oxide (ThO2) 

powder from July 23, 1958, through July 1959. Work included using ThO2 sources and making 

thorium nitrate solutions. 

2.2.5 Tritium Work and Operations

KCP workers used luminescent paint made with organically-bound tritium to fill engraved “Hi-Lo” 

switch plates. This work occurred between 1963 and 1968. 

KCP workers also worked with tritium in the manufacture of tritium monitors from 1959 through 1975. 

The tritium was in the form of tritiated water in calibration standards for monitors of tritium in air, water, 

and urine.

2.2.6 Nickel Plating

KCP used 63Ni as a part of the manufacturing of tritium monitors. The workers plated the 63Ni onto 

aluminum plates for use as a calibration standard for tritium- in- air and urine monitors.

2.2.7 Decontamination and Decommissioning

KCP contracted with Rockwell International Corporation to perform Decontamination and 

Decommissioning of the Main Manufacturing Building in 1984. This work occurred between 1984 and 

1986 and consisted of cleaning waste burial trenches and the Machining Area where uranium work 

had occurred.

2.3 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY PROGRAM

The plant maintained a formal procedures manual (BAC 1958); Procedure S-306 of this manual, 

dated November 24, 1958, defines health and safety measures for receiving, handling, and storing the 

radioactive materials. Sections in the procedure address area access control, physical requirements, 

protective apparel, personal hygiene, material handling, production area, scrap and waste disposal, 

and injuries. KCP revised this procedure in 1960 (Foster 1960) and in 1962 (Foster 1962).

In 1965, the plant evaluated 23 categories of workers for potential exposure to solvents, alcohols, etc., 

and to radiation. Table 2-2 summarizes the evaluations for those categories in which workers had the 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 15 of 78

potential for exposure to radiation (Schiltz 1966a). There was a routine program of measuring 

uranium in urine (and lead in blood) for selected workers on a permanent access list for specific work 

areas (Bendix undated). The security, medical, and safety departments used this list together. Those 

on the list had permission to work in areas of radioactive material handling (Nasca 2004a). This list is 

no longer in use. 

Table 2-2. Categorization of workers in special physical examination program working with radiation

(Schiltz 1966a).

Group Description Potential exposure sourcesa

I Radiation workers,

Departments 22, 34C, and 

217-22

Uranium oxide and litharge (lead) powders with particle size 

ranging from nearly 0 to 20 microns; fumes from chlorinated 

hydrocarbon solvents.

IV X-ray workers, 

Department 213C

X-ray radiation or gamma radiation from Cs-137 source (7 Ci); 

parts containing uranium dioxide.

VI Radiation workers, 

Departments 267, 268, and 280

Electronic tubes with a very small amount of radioactive material; 

drums with radioactive waste material (uranium dioxide) from 

Departments 22 and 34C.

X Electron beam welders, 

Departments 45, 585, 201, 851, 

and Maintenance

Electron beam welders, which operate much like X-ray 

machines.

XV Personnel handling neutron 

sources

There is none of this work at the plant at present; however, the 

Test Laboratory could be working with neutron sources in near 

future.

XX Personnel using microderm 

thickness gauge

A small amount of beta radiation.

a. Note that physicals normally include chest X-rays. Firemen and patrolmen received physicals every 2 yr and had exit 

physicals. Cafeteria workers received physicals every 3 yr but no exit physicals. All other groups received an initial 

physical, annual periodic physical, and exit physical.

2.4 RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM

The KCP Safety Department had primary responsibility for industrial hygiene and health physics. 

Potential exposure from X-rays and isotopic beta, photon, and neutron radiation sources represented 

a significant concern, but the historical emphasis appears to have involved higher potential 

nonradiological exposures to solvents such as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, trichloroethylene, 

alcohol, toluene, and xylene; solvent fumes; epoxy resins and amine catalysts; polyester resins and 

peroxide catalysts, silicones, polysulfides, polyurethane, and tolylene isocyanate catalysts; and to 

fumes from acid, base, and salt chemicals of a wide variety. The focus appears to have involved 

ongoing evaluations of industrial, chemical, and radiological workplace hazards. There are records of 

frequent reviews of ionizing radiation equipment to evaluate the adequacy of shielding and interlocks. 

The earliest survey of radiation-generating devices (RGDs) apparently occurred in 1953 through the 

contracted services of a certified radiological physicist to evaluate the 1-MeV and 250-keV industrial 

X-ray units (Hoecker 1953). There are records of contamination surveys of the workplace using forms 

that imply a routine evaluation (Baldwin 1966).

2.5 RADIATION SOURCES

KCP operations used radiation as one of the analytical tools to accurately manufacture, fabricate, and 

inspect nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons. Table 2-3 summarizes the types of radioactive 

sources at KCP during 1964 and 1987. Significant differences involve the extensive earlier use of 

radium sources and the presence of the 230-Ci 137Cs instrument calibration source in 1987. The 

primary radiation sources at KCP have involved analytical laboratory technologies for the 

manufacturing and testing of electronic and mechanical devices. The plant examined fabricated 

materials, parts, and assemblies for internal flaws and defects to ensure compliance with engineering 

specifications and requirements. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 16 of 78

Table 2-3. Radiation sources and predominant radiation types.

Nuclide Use 1964a 1987b Type

Major energies

(keV)

C-14

Calibration source, beta scope, thickness 

gauges

Yes Yes Beta 45–156

Fe-55 Testing No Yes Gamma Bremsstrahlung to 

230

Co-60 Calibration sources Yes No Gamma 1,170, 1,330

Ni-63 Gas chromatograph No Yes Beta 67

Sr-90 Calibration, thickness gauges No Yes Beta 546 

Tc-99 Calibrations No Yes Beta 292

Tl-204 Beta scope, thickness gauges No Yes Beta 766

Cd-109 Plating thickness gauge No Yes Gamma 88

Ba-133 Neutron generator No Yes Gamma 30–382

Cs-137 Calibration sources Yes Yes Beta 514–1,176

Cs-137 Calibration sources Yes Yes Gamma 662

Pm-147 Calibration sources, thickness gauges No Yes Beta 70–256

Tl-204 Beta scope, thickness gauges No Yes Beta 766

Radium Calibration sources, thickness gauges Yes Yes Alpha 4,600–4,780

Radium Calibration sources, thickness gauges Yes Yes Gamma 186–610

Uranium Calibration sources No No Alpha/gamma 

progeny 

radiations from 

Th-230, Ra-226, 

etc.

Alpha/gamma 

progeny radiations 

from Th-230, 

Ra-226, etc.

Pu-239 Calibration sources, boron analysis Yes Yes Alpha 5,110–5,160

Pu-239 Calibration sources, boron analysis Yes Yes Gamma 39–770

a. Source: Schiltz (1964).

b. Source: Author unknown (1987).

In addition to the sources in Table 2-3, thorium oxide ThO2 powder was handled in the plant” (Schiltz 

1963, p. 12). Inventories of radiological sources show use of some ThO2 sources and that KCP made 

a thorium nitrate solution at a rate of 20 g/yr (Allied-Signal 1989–1990).

In addition to the radiation sources, radiographic inspections involved the use of numerous RGDs. 

Table 2-4 lists typical RGDs, and the following summarizes radiation-generating examinations:

• X-Ray Radiography. KCP used X-ray machines of different sizes and power to examine 

fabricated materials for structural defects such as voids or inclusions in weld or braze joints. 

This is also useful for failure analysis of electrical and mechanical assemblies.

• Neutron Radiography. This is similar to X-ray radiography except it uses neutrons rather than 

X-rays. The primary advantage of neutron radiography is that high-density materials such as 

iron, lead, and uranium are nearly transparent to neutrons, while low-density materials such as 

organic compounds are highly absorptive to neutrons. This technique is particularly well 

suited to examining foams, encapsulants, or seals through relatively thick metal cases.

• Gauging. The plant used beta and X-ray techniques in a variety of applications to measure 

the thickness of materials. The backscatter of beta radiation can determine the thicknesses of 

platings and coatings.

KCP operations involved numerous analytical capabilities. Those involving ionizing radiation included 

nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry, electron probe microanalysis, and scanning electron 

microscopy. Radiation protection surveys of equipment installations appear to have been an integral 

component of the safety program. For example, workplace surveys during 1960 and 1964 contain 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 17 of 78

detailed evaluations of the installations, normal operating conditions, routine survey instrumentation, 

enclosures, safety features, and electrical safeguards (Bendix 1960–1964; Bendix 1964–1965).

Table 2-4. Typical RGDs (HFMT 2004). 

Devices Energy (keV) Types Typical use Period of use

Industrial X-ray units 50 to 2,000 (X-ray) Rooms & cabinets Radiography of parts 1950s–2004

DXT devicea 12 to 200 (X-ray) Cabinets Density thickness 1960s–1980s

DXT device Cs-137 (1 Ci) Cabinets Density thickness 1960s–1980s

Electron beam 

welders

35 to 150 (X-ray) Cabinets Welding small parts 1960s–2004

Electron microscopes 30 to 200 (X-ray) Cabinets Analysis 1960s–2004

Electron beam 

vacuum deposition 

systems

10 (X-ray) Cabinets Plating metals 1960s–2004

Neutron generators 14.7 MeV 

(neutron)

Open & cabinets Generate microsecond

pulsed radiation

1960s–2004

Neutron source Pu-239/Be 

(73 mCi)

Cabinets Boron-10 analysis 1966–2004

Neutron source Pu-239/Be 

(10 mCi)

N/A N/A Received May 

11, 1964

Neutron source Ra/Be (20.48 mg) N/A Sandia workers January 1955

Neutron source Ra/Be (10 mg) N/A N/A Received July 

20, 1962

Gamma camera Co-60 (19 Ci) Exposure room Test electronic products 1950s–1960s

Febetron accelerator 2,300 (X-ray) 

pulser

Cabinets Irradiation of electronic 

components

1970s–1980s

Cesium irradiators Cs-137 (230 Ci) Exposure room Calibration of radiation 

detection instruments

1950s–1980s

Medical X-ray 125 (X-ray) Exposure room X-rays of workers Late 1950s–

1990s

Electro curtain 175 (X-ray) Cabinet Radiation curing of 

adhesives

1980s–1990s

a. DXT = density times thickness.

Table 2-5. Radiation detection equipment list.

a

Description

Detection 

Range Number

Victoreen Low Range Beta-Gamma Survey Meter, Model #592B 0–1,000 

mR/hr

2

Gas Proportional Alpha Survey Meters, Eberline Model #PAC-3G 0–100,000 

cpm

4

Beta/Gamma Survey Meter, Nuclear Chicago Corporation, Model 2586 0–25, 0–250, 

and 0–2,500 

mR/hr

1

Low-Range Beta-Gamma Survey Meters, Victoreen Model #389C 0–20 mR/hr 4

Fast-Slow Neutron Survey Meter, Nuclear Chicago Model #2715 10–104 n/cm2 2

Air Proportional Alpha Survey Meter, Eberline Instrument Corp., Model #PAC-1A 0–100,000 

cpm

1

Tritium Monitors, Atomic Accessories, Model #TSM91 0–100,000 

mCi/cm3 of 

air of tritium

2

Gamma Survey Meters, Victoreen Model 61720 0–500 R/hr 2

High Range Gamma Survey Meters, Eberline Instrument Corp., Model Gadora 

1-B

0–5,000 R/hr 2

Victoreen Condenser R-Meter Model #570 with assortment of probes for energy 

and dose

Not 

applicable

2
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 18 of 78

Description

Detection 

Range Number

Victoreen Model 510 Roentgen rate meter with assortment of probes Not 

applicable

1

Gamma Radiation Monitor, Eberline Instrument Corp., Model RM-2 0–0.2 mR/hr 1

Beta-Gamma Count Rate Meters, Victoreen Model 743 0–60,000 

cpm

2

Eberline Alpha Gas Proportional Floor Monitors, Model FM-2G 0–100,000 

cpm

2

Pocket ionization dosimeters, charge readers, and approximately 170 

dosimeters

0-100 R Not 

known

Tritium Monitor, Atomic Accessories Corp., Model #TSM-91-C, BKC #29549 Not 

applicable

1

Alpha, Beta, Gamma Proportional Counter, Nuclear Measurements, Model PC3, 

Serial No. 275, BKC #14346

Not 

applicable

1

Proportional Counter Converter, Nuclear Measurements Corp., Model 

#PCC12A, Serial No. 145, BKC #17098

Not 

applicable

1

Cutie Pie Survey Meter, Model 2510, Nuclear Chicago 0–25,00 

mR/hr

1

a. Source: Schiltz (1966b)

2.6 RADIATION DETECTION INSTRUMENTATION

The Industrial Hygiene Department appears to have had extensive radiation detection instrument 

capabilities. Table 2-5 lists the equipment from a memorandum that was apparently first written on 

May 19, 1964, and updated in August 1965 and March 1966 (Schiltz 1966b).

2.7 RADIOLOGICAL RECORDS

KCP has developed and maintained a radiological records database that contains records for all 

monitored worker exposures at KCP for all years of record.

The database contains exposure data for about 4,400 workers. General trends in the recorded dose 

are:

• Positive deep, shallow, and extremity doses first occurred in 1950.

• Positive neutron doses first occurred in 1966. 

• Before about 1959, the recorded deep and shallow doses were essentially equal.

• Recorded extremity dose was higher in 1951 and 1952 than in any other year.

• Relatively high shallow dose (in comparison with deep dose) occurred from 1959 to 1964 and 

during 1973. 

• Recorded neutron dose is typically equal to recorded deep dose and to recorded shallow 

dose. The shallow dose is typically equal to the deep dose.

• There are comparatively few records with positive neutron dose.

• The only years with recorded positive uranium bioassay results are 1959 to 1971.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 19 of 78

It appears KCP recorded some doses in nearly all occupational categories. The records of higher 

doses and information from Nasca (2004b) indicate KCP assigned some doses to workers even 

though investigations at the time of measurement showed unexplainable causes. Given the 

information available, dose reconstructors should treat these doses as actual.

A KCP health physicist provided a spreadsheet with internal and external dosimetry data for 1950 

through 2003 (Nasca 2004d). It includes 14,759 lines; each linecontains between one and five 

individual external dose records. Each individual record is the sum of the individual monitoring results 

throughout a given year. The spreadsheet does not contain names or social security numbers, but 

KCP transferred the complete database with this information to NIOSH on February 9, 2012

(HFMT 2012).

The previous revision of this document contained a coworker model based on the spreadsheet data. 

The KCP SEC petition evaluation report uses the coworker model to bound some doses (NIOSH 

2014). NIOSH performed a validation and verification (V&V; Darnell et al. 2015) of the complete 

database. The V&V showed accurate transfer of data from raw exposure records into a database and 

that the information is sufficiently accurate. As a result, dose reconstructors may use recorded doses 

from the KCP database to supplement the hard-copy original dosimeter processing information from 

DOE. In many cases the original records are difficult to read.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 20 of 78

3.0 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE

As part of the requirements for employment at KCP starting in 1949, employees received 

preemployment, periodic, and/or termination physical examinations (Todd 2004a). These physical 

examinations might have included radiographic examinations of the chest to screen for disease. 

Because these were a job requirement, OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guideline (NIOSH 2007) requires the X-ray doses to be included as occupational radiation dose. This 

section discusses medical X-rays for screening that KCP required as a condition of employment. 

However, it does not include diagnostic and therapeutic exposures for diagnosis or treatment of

disease or work-related injuries. The EEOICPA excludes those X-rays from dose reconstruction. 

The following sections describe the estimation of absorbed dose from X-ray exposures for KCP

workers. Section 3.1 describes the X-ray screening examination frequency at KCP from historical 

documents and claim file records. Section 3.2 provides information on equipment and techniques, 

including assumptions from a lack of protocol, measurement, or records data. Section 3.3 provides 

organ dose estimates by calendar year and type of X-ray. Section 3.4 documents uncertainty of dose 

estimates.

3.1 EXAMINATION FREQUENCY

All workers, including fire, patrol, radiation, and cafeteria workers, received a chest X-ray during the 

preemployment examination and annually thereafter until the mid-1980s (Todd 2004b, Todd 2004c, 

Brendlinger 1974, Stowers 1951a). The preemployment chest X-ray was discontinued in the 

mid-1980s. Several sources mention that the chest X-ray was a single posterior-anterior (PA)

projection (Bendix 1976; Brendlinger 1974; Jacobson 1988; Todd 2004b). This is evident from the 

claim file records; lateral (LAT) chest X-rays are rare. Beginning in 1993 chest X-rays were taken 

every 5 years, or more frequently if worker history or physical circumstances indicated the need. In 

1997, medical X-ray services were outsourced, presumably off site (Todd 2004c). A review of X-rays 

from the 1950s and 1960s (Todd 2004c) found no evidence that KCP used photofluorography.

Table 3-1 summarizes the frequency of chest X-rays.

Dose reconstructors should assume annual PA chest X-rays through 1996. X-rays after 1996 do not 

qualify for dose reconstruction (ORAUT 2016a). Assign dose from the records (through 1996) in the 

claim file or according to the frequency in Table 3-1 if records are not available. Do not assign dose 

from photofluorography unless the claim file contains a record of it.

Other X-rays (lumbar spine, thoracic, etc.) are likely to be nonoccupational in the sense that they were 

associated with illness or injury and were not part of a screening process. There is no indication in 

the records that other radiographic examinations routinely occurred for screening.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 21 of 78

Table 3-1. Frequency of occupational X-ray screening.

Period Workers X-ray projections Frequency

1949–1985 All workers PA chesta Preemployment, annual, 

and termination

1986–1992 All workers PA chest Annual and terminationa

1993–1996 All workers PA chest Every 5 yearsb

1997–present Outsourced, presumably 

off siteb

Outsourced, presumably 

off siteb

Outsourced, presumably 

off siteb

a. Todd 2004b.

b. Todd 2004c, p. 3.

3.2 EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES

1949 to 1961

The earliest mention of X-ray equipment at KCP is from 1958 and is a memorandum about a survey 

of the medical X-ray equipment (Pettie 1958) following National Bureau of Standards Report 60 (NBS 

1955). However, there is not enough technical information in this memo to use for dosimetric 

purposes.

Survey results from 1961 (Staggs and Schiltz 1961; Schiltz 1961), indicate the X-ray machine was 

from General Electric Company (GE) with 2.0-mm Al equivalent total filtration and includes the model, 

serial, and presumably the property number. The form states that there was no “cone” or beam 

limitation. There are no recorded primary beam measurements, but the form gives the technique for a 

PA chest X-ray as 76 kVp, 100 mA, and 0.1 s. The half-value layer (HVL) is 2.0 mm Al for 2.0-mm Al 

equivalent total filtration at 76 kVp (NCRP 1997). 

Using this information, the methods in ORAUT-OTIB-0006 (ORAUT 2011a), and average air kerma 

rates from National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report 102, the 

incident air kerma at the source-to-skin distance (SSD) is 2.29 × 10-2 cGy (NCRP 1997). This value 

includes a correction made for the 2.0-mm Al total filtration in this machine but using the tabulated

values in Report 102, which are for 2.5 mm Al total filtration. While it is not certain this X-ray 

equipment was the original equipment from 1949 or 1950, the analysis assumed so.

The organ doses for this period (Table 3-2) are based on an incident air kerma of 2.29 × 10-2 cGy for 

a PA chest X-ray, poor collimation, and an HVL of 2.0 mm Al at 75 kVp.

1962 to 1970

Survey results from 1962 appear to be from a different GE machine because there are different 

model, serial, and property numbers (Meunier, Stewart, and Shiltz 1962). The reported total filtration 

is 2.5 mm Al equivalent, and there is mention of a “cone” for beam restriction. A 1964 survey has a 

rectangular diagram of the X-ray field, so this machine had an adjustable collimator to restrict the 

beam (Harrison, Meunier, and Schiltz 1964). 

The staff made ionization chamber measurements in the primary beam of this machine with pencil 

ionization chambers taped to the wall with the X-ray tube 72 in. away, as it would be for a PA chest 

X-ray. The technique factors for the ionization chambers were 75 kVp, 100 mA, and 0.5 s (Harrison, 

Meunier, and Schiltz 1964), while the chest X-rays were exposed at 0.1 s. Several ionization

chamber measurements were made at 4, 8, 12, and 16 in. from the center of the beam. By assuming 

that the measurement at 4 in. from the center would be about 70% of the center value, this analysis 

estimated the center measurement as 37 mR. This exposure measurement converts to an incident 

air kerma of 9.14 × 10-3cGy at the SSD and after scaling to the exposure time for chest X-rays. 

The organ doses for this period (Table 3-2) are based on an incident air kerma of 9.14 × 10-3 cGy for 

a PA chest X-ray, poor collimation, and an HVL of 2.5 mm Al at 75 kVp.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 22 of 78

1971 to 1981

Several radiation surveys from this period seem to indicate still another GE machine because of 

different model and serial numbers (Meunier 1977, p. 4; DeCloud 1981a; Meunier and DeCloud 

1980). A survey of a machine in 1984 mentions KCP installed the machine in 1971 (DeCloud 1984). 

The staff made ionization chamber measurements in the primary beam of this machine with pencil 

ionization chambers taped to the wall cassette holder to determine the average radiation exposure for 

a PA chest X-ray. The measurements, using both maximum and minimum chest technique factors,

were averaged. The reported results range from 13 to 14 mR, which are presumably the actual 

readings of the ionization chamber at 72 in. from the X-ray tube.

Converting the 14-mR ionization chamber measurement to an incident air kerma using the equations 

in ORAUT-OTIB-0006 (ORAUT 2011a) results in an incident air kerma of 1.71 × 10-2 cGy. The 

filtration or HVL is not mentioned, so the analysis assumed the HVL is 2.5 mm Al for the PA chest 

technique factors. A further assumption for this period is proper collimation. Table 3-2 lists the organ 

doses.

1982 to 1996

The same type of ionization chamber measurements continued in this period. There is no evidence to 

date of a new machine during this period. However, the ionization chamber measurement increased

to 43 to 49 mR rather than the 14 mR in the previous period (Bendix Corporation ca. 1981; DeCloud 

1982, 1983). The cause of this appears to be that KCP added a grid at this time to improve the chest 

X-ray images, which would explain the increase in the ionization chamber measurement. There is 

one handwritten notation in the survey results for 1982 that mentions adding a grid (Bendix 

Corporation ca. 1981).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) performed a survey in 1984 and measured the entrance 

skin exposure at 18 mR with a standard phantom (Patterson 1984, p. 3). This is lower than the above 

measurements, so the analysis assumed there was no grid. The inspector noted that the machine 

was manufactured before 1974 and did not have a phototimer or a positive beam-limiting device 

(automatic collimator). These factors indicate this machine was the same as in the previous period. 

Another document mentions that par speed (i.e., medium) film and screens (Jacobson 1988, p. 7). 

Which persons might have been X-rayed with a grid is unknown, and because the use of a grid to 

produce chest X-rays would have been good practice during the 1980s, the higher measured values 

in the previous paragraph were used to determine the organ doses.

Converting the 49-mR ionization chamber measurement to an incident air kerma using the equations 

in ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 

2011a), results in an incident air kerma of 5.99 × 10-2 cGy. FDA measured the HVL at 2.5 mm Al for 

90 kVp (Patterson 1984, p. 2). A further assumption for this period is proper collimation. Table 3-2 

lists the organ doses.

KCP outsourced X-rays starting in 1997, presumably to an offsite facility (Todd 2004c). While it is 

unlikely that the same X-ray machine has been in service since 1971 when the latest known GE 

machine was installed, the available records do not indicate otherwise. Therefore, the analysis 

assumed organ doses are valid through 1996 when X-rays were outsourced. 

3.3 ORGAN DOSE ESTIMATES

The analysis determined organ dose equivalents using the methods in ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose 

Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 2011a), the above incident air 

kerma values, and dose conversion factors (DCFs) from International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). The dose equivalents incorporate assumptions of poor 

beam collimation for chest X-rays before 1971 and proper collimation starting in 1971.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 23 of 78

Table 3-2 lists organ dose equivalents for PA chest X-rays for each period, and Table 3-3 lists skin 

dose equivalents.

The tissue at risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is the B-lymphocytes. The analysis used the 

method in ORAUT-OTIB-0082, Dose Reconstruction Method for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

(ORAUT 2012a), site-specific information, and ICRP Publication 34 DCFs (ICRP 1982) to determine 

the dose equivalent to the B-lymphocytes. Table 3-4 provides dose distributions and statistical 

parameters for input into the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP).

Table 3-2. Organ dose equivalents for PA chest X-rays (rem).

Organ 1949–1961 1962–1970 1971–1981 1982–1996

Thyroid 3.45E–03 1.59E–03 5.47E–04 1.92E–03

Eye/brain 4.80E–04 2.92E–04 5.47E–04 1.92E–03

Ovaries 2.63E–03 1.54E–03 1.71E–05 5.99E–05

Liver/gall bladder/spleen/pancreas 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Urinary bladder/prostate 2.63E–03 1.54E–03 1.71E–05 5.99E–05

Colon/rectum 2.63E–03 1.54E–03 1.71E–05 5.99E–05

Testes 1.30E–04 8.32E–05 1.71E–07 5.99E–07

Lungs male 7.66E–03 3.83E–03 7.17E–03 2.51E–02

Lungs female 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Thymus 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Esophagus 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Stomach 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Bone surfaces 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Remainder 8.12E–03 4.12E–03 7.71E–03 2.70E–02

Breast 7.32E–04 4.48E–04 8.38E–04 2.93E–03

Uterus 2.36E–03 1.36E–03 2.22E–05 7.78E–05

Bone marrow male 1.58E–03 8.41E–04 1.57E–03 5.51E–03

Bone marrow female 1.44E–03 7.86E–04 1.47E–03 5.15E–03

Skina 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

a. Entrance skin dose equivalent (ENSD) is determined by multiplying the incident air kerma by the backscatter factors of 

1.32 and 1.35 for HVLs of 2.0 and 2.5 mm Al, respectively, from NCRP Report 102 (NCRP 1997, Table B-8). See 

Table 3-3 for skin doses.

Table 3-3. Skin dose guidance and skin dose equivalents (rem) for PA chest X-rays.

a,b

Area of skin

PA chest

guidance

≤1970

PA chest

1949–1961

PA chest

1962–1970

PA chest

guidance

>1970

PA chest

1971–1981

PA chest

1982–1996

Right front shoulder EXSD 6.E–04 3.E–04 EXSD 5.E–04 1.8E–03

Right back shoulder ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Left front shoulder EXSD 6.E–04 3.E–04 EXSD 5.E–04 1.8E–03

Left back shoulder ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Right upper arm to elbow ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left upper arm to elbow ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left hand ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Right hand ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left elbow, forearm, wrist ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Right elbow, forearm, 

wrist

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Right side of head 

including ear and temple

10% ENSD 3.0E–03 1.2E–03 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left side of head 

including ear and temple

10% ENSD 3.0E–03 1.2E–03 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Front left thigh RSD (0.52 m) 7.E–04 4.E–06 RSD 

(0.52 m)

7.E–06 2.E–05
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 24 of 78

Area of skin

PA chest

guidance

≤1970

PA chest

1949–1961

PA chest

1962–1970

PA chest

guidance

>1970

PA chest

1971–1981

PA chest

1982–1996

Back left thigh RSD (0.52 m) 7.E–04 4.E–06 RSD 

(0.52 m)

7.E–06 2.E–05

Front right thigh RSD (0.52 m) 7.E–04 4.E–06 RSD 

(0.52 m)

7.E–06 2.E–05

Back right thigh RSD (0.52 m) 7.E–04 4.E–06 RSD 

(0.52 m)

7.E–06 2.E–05

Left knee and below RSD (0.86 m) 3.E–04 1.E–06 RSD 

(0.86 m)

2.E–06 8.E–06

Right knee and below RSD (0.86 m) 3.E–04 1.E–06 RSD 

(0.86 m)

2.E–06 8.E–06

Left side of face Eye/Brain 5.E–04 3.E–04 Eye/Brain 5.E–04 1.9E–03

Right side of face Eye/Brain 5.E–04 3.E–04 Eye/Brain 5.E–04 1.9E–03

Left side of neck ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Right side of neck ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Back of head 10% ENSD 3.0E–03 1.2E–03 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Front of neck Eye/Brain 5.E–04 3.E–04 Thyroid 5.E–04 1.9E–03

Back of neck ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Front torso: base of 

neck to end of sternum

EXSD 6.E–04 3.E–04 EXSD 5.E–04 1.8E–03

Front torso: end of 

sternum to lowest rib

EXSD 6.E–04 3.E–04 EXSD 5.E–04 1.8E–03

Front torso: lowest rib to 

iliac crest

EXSD 6.E–04 3.E–04 10% EXSD 5.E–05 2.E–04

Front torso: iliac crest to 

pubis

10% EXSD 6.E–05 3.E–05 10% EXSD 5.E–05 2.E–04

Back torso: base of neck 

to mid–back

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Back torso: mid–back to 

lowest rib

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Back torso: lowest rib to 

iliac crest

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Back torso: buttocks 

(Iliac crest and below)

10% ENSD 3.0E-03 1.2E-03 10% ENSD 2.3E-03 8.1E-03

Right torso: base of 

neck to end of sternum

ENSD 3.02E-02 1.23E-02 ENSD 2.31E-02 8.08E-02

Right torso: end of 

sternum to lowest rib

ENSD 3.02E-02 1.23E-02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Right torso: lowest rib to 

iliac crest

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Right torso: iliac crest to 

pubis (right hip)

10% ENSD 3.0E–03 1.2E–03 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left torso: base of neck 

to end of sternum

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Left torso: end of 

sternum to lowest rib

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 ENSD 2.31E–02 8.08E–02

Left torso: lowest rib to 

iliac crest

ENSD 3.02E–02 1.23E–02 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

Left torso: iliac crest to 

pubis (left hip)

10% ENSD 3.0E–03 1.2E–03 10% ENSD 2.3E–03 8.1E–03

a. ENSD = entrance skin exposure; EXSD = exit skin exposure; RSD = remote skin dose.

b. Values less than 0.1 mrem shown to one significant digit.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 25 of 78

Table 3-4. IREP dose distributions and statistical parameters for the dose to the B-lymphocytes. 

Projection and 

period IREP distribution Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Parameter 3

PA chest 1949–1961 Weibull3 2.822290 0.004820 6.90976E-06

PA chest 1962–1970 Weibull3 2.929763 0.002503 9.79606E-06

PA chest 1971–1981 Weibull3 2.067236 0.003250 -1.38818E-07

PA chest 1982–1996 Weibull3 2.054835 0.011383 1.11014E-05

3.4 UNCERTAINTY

ORAUT-OTIB-0006 lists these five major sources of uncertainty in X-ray output intensity and their 

effects on dose to the worker (ORAUT 2011a): 

• X-ray beam measurement error (±2%),

• Variation in peak kilovoltage (±9%),

• Variation in X-ray beam current (±5%),

• Variation in exposure time (±25%), and

• Variation in source-to-skin distance as a result of worker size (±10%).

The 10% uncertainty in output intensity as a result of worker size derives from an inverse square 

correction of output intensity changes from differences of standard chest thickness of ±7.5 cm.

Uncertainties are usually random; therefore, the analysis calculated the combined statistical 

uncertainty as the square root of the sum of the squares of all the uncertainties, which is ±28.9%. 

Rounding this to ±30% provides an adequate and suitably conservative indication of uncertainty. 

Therefore, a total combined standard uncertainty of ±30% applies to a derived dose equivalent to an 

individual organ other than the B-lymphocytes. Dose reconstructors should, therefore, input the organ 

dose equivalent as the mean of a normal distribution with a standard uncertainty of ±30%.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 26 of 78

4.0 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

4.1 EXTERNAL AMBIENT DOSE

KCP prepared a site safety assessment in 1995 (Allied-Signal 1995) that concluded that plant 

operations had produced no undue hazard to the general public and no significant effect on the 

environment. It appears that there were minimal, if any, historical radiological effects. Staff routinely 

monitored air and water effluents to assess compliance with relevant criteria. KCP routinely handled

hazardous chemicals, but there was limited handling of radioactive materials. Therefore, significant 

occupational environmental exposure from releases were unlikely. The plant did generate low-level 

radioactive waste including equipment radiation sources, tritium exit signs, irradiated components, 

gap tubes, smoke detectors, and small amounts of cleanup materials and personal protective 

equipment. Mixed wastes (hazardous and radioactive) consisted of encapsulated electronic 

assemblies and spent solvents for cleaning and decontaminating radioactive materials (primarily 

defective sources).

There was no significant offsite environmental exposure to the public. Therefore, the analysis 

calculated that the variability in ambient exposure of background control personnel dosimeters at 2-

sigma (25 mrem per year) is favorable to unmonitored workers (Attachment A). For a best estimate of 

external ambient dose, dose reconstructors should assign 25 mrem per year using the organ DCFs 

for isotropic exposure geometry in accordance with ORAUT-PROC-0060, Occupational Onsite 

Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites (ORAUT 2006b).

4.2 INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

The primary and apparently only substance present in large quantities with a potential for significant 

environmental release was DU from 1958 through 1970. As described in Attachment A, the 

recommended approach to assign an internal environmental dose to unmonitored nonradiological 

workers is to assume an annual intake fraction of 0.01 times the GM annual measured air 

concentrations in Table 5-3 (i.e., multiply annual concentrations in Table 5-3 by 6.58 × 1010 to convert 

to picocuries per day). The 0.01 estimate of the decrease in concentration is favorable to claimants 

based on dispersion between inside and outside air concentrations. 

For the period after 1970, there are no workplace air sampling data available for analysis. There is a 

potential for unknown small releases or residual contamination, such as the known incident with 147Pm 

in 1989, so the same factor of 0.01 factor, along with the GM annual measured air concentration (for 

all years) from Table 5-3, applies to this period. Beginning in 1990, there is assurance that no 

significant environmental releases occurred based on the multiagency response findings to the 147Pm 

incident.

Section 5.0 discusses internal doses for other operational and postoperational periods from natural 

uranium, Mg-Th, and tritium. Dose reconstructors should assign environmental dose to unmonitored 

workers who meet the requirement for a given timeframe and work department as indicated in 

Section 5.2.

Dose reconstructors should assign environmental intakes per Table A-4 in Attachment A for depleted 

uranium, and in subsection of section 5.2 based on work in those areas.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 27 of 78

5.0 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE

KCP has handled numerous types of radioactive sources (Table 2-3). Most of these sources are 

sealed or contained as components of various types of equipment. There have been no recorded 

incidents involving confirmed internal intakes (Lund 2004). The primary source of workplace 

exposure was from machining involving DU oxide from 1958 to about 1971. The program that used 

DU oxide ended in 1972 (Nasca 2005a). 

No other uranium was processed until 1997 when a new program began. From 1997 to 2013 KCP 

used an electrochemical process to reduce DU metal in size and shape. The process involved the 

placement of DU metal in an acid bath. The parts were rinsed with water and dried before handling. 

Because the uranium did not become volatile during the electrochemical process (it remained in the 

acid solution), there was minimal potential for internal dose from this process. There is no removable 

contamination with this process (Nasca 2005a). Bioassay data (urine assays) and air monitoring data 

are available only for 1959 through 1971.

The intakes derived in the following sections apply to workers at the Kansas City Plant involved in 

several operation eras that are congruent. Where intakes are applied for a full year, a worker is not 

expected to be exposed to multiple internal hazards simultaneously. Dose reconstructors should 

evaluate all applicable intakes from the following sections, and apply the intakes resulting in the 

highest dose when timeframes overlap. i.e., a worker cannot be exposed full-time to uranium and 

thorium operations at the same time. Dose reconstructors should apply the sourceterm associated 

with recycled uranium in Section 5.3 for all uranium exposures after 1952.

5.1 DEPLETED URANIUM

The uranium at KCP was DU. Table 5-1 lists typical weight percents and activity fractions of uranium 

isotopes. When estimating intakes, dose reconstructors should assume exposures to uranium dust 

were chronic. A chronic exposure pattern best approximates the true exposure conditions for most 

workers with a potential for intakes. In addition, a chronic exposure pattern approximates a series of 

acute intakes, which makes it appropriate when there is no specific information for a given individual.

For internal dose calculations, dose reconstructors should evaluate internal doses assuming the 

uranium mix is 100% U-234. 

Table 5-1. Mass and specific constituent activity in mixtureb of DU.

Isotope

Weight 

percentagea Bq/mg pCi/mg dpm/mg

U-234 0.0010 2.3116 62.4757 138.696

U-235 0.1991 0.1592 4.3028 9.5523

U-236 0.0003 0.0072 0.1941 0.4308

U-238 99.7996 12.4111 335.4345 744.6647

Totals Not applicable 14.889 402.4071 893.3437

a. Source: IMBA.

b. Could vary from IMBA values due to rounding.

5.1.1 Physical and Radiological Characteristics

KCP had substantial quantities of UO2 on the site at various times. Order number ICO-020757 

(Bendix 1962) shows that UO2 was ordered in 10,000-lb lots. The relevant specifications from 

Specification Control No. 4542260-00 (Allied-Signal 1998) were that the minimum density should be 

no less than 10.8 g/cm3

, the surface area of the powder should be no greater than 1.1 m2/g, at least 

97% by weight of the material should be less than 10 μm in diameter, and 100% by weight should be 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 28 of 78

less than 15 μm in diameter. These specifications are consistent with a powder having an activity 

median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD) of 1.175 μm and a Sigma-G of 2.48. 

In fitting bioassay data, dose reconstructors may wish to start with a 1-μm AMAD, a GSD of 2.5, a 

density of 10.97 g/cm3

, a lung solubility Typetype S, and f1 of 0.002 (ICRP 1994b). However, it is not 

known what impact processes at KCP had on the particle size of uranium. Use of the default 5-μm 

AMAD particle size is also acceptable unless it is known that the intake was of unaltered UO2 powder. 

When using the 5-μm AMAD particle size and other default parameters, dose reconstructors should 

evaluate solubility types M and S and apply the higest dose. 

5.1.2 Workplace Monitoring 

Table 5-2 summarizes alpha radiation contamination results from 1962 to 1969 in DU work areas with 

the most significance to potential worker exposure (HFMT 2004). In addition, from 1958 to 1970 

workplaces were routinely monitored with air samplers for DU concentrations (Nasca 2004c). 

Table 5-3 lists the maximum measured workplace concentrations and the calculated values of the GM

and 95th percentile concentrations. 

Table 5-2. Measured alpha contamination levels (dpm/100 cm2

), 1962 to 

1969 (HFMT 2004).

Facility Work area Average Maximum

D/34C (D/27C) Air lock 226 20,000

D/34C (D/27C) Locker room 570 7,000

D/34C (D/27C) General area 2,564 45,000

D/220-22 (D/443-20D

D/216-22, D/217-20D)

Air lock 190 800

D/220-22 (D/443-20D

D/216-22, D/217-20D)

Wash-up 180 650

D/220-22 (D/443-20D

D/216-22, D/217-20D)

General area 425 1,000

D/22, D/20D Air lock 206 350

D/22, D/20D Clean area 468 2,000

D/22, D/20D General area 892 16,000

Eating and smoking were prohibited in DU processing areas. However, at least one survey report 

indicated the presence of cigarette butts, candy wrappers, and coffee cups in the exclusion area 

(Baldwin 1966). This indicates that ingestion of DU was a possible route of occasional intake. To be 

favorable to claimants, dose reconstructors should assume inhalation or ingestion intakes. 

The parameters in Table 5-3 were based on maximum measured air concentrations at several 

locations in the plant. Some locations were identified only by a number. When locations were 

available, most were near the walls of the work areas. Other locations were labeled as “Mixing Rm, 

West,” “Air Lock,” “Over Shower,” “Rubber Mill Rm,” “Mill Stack West,” and “Dispersion Roll.”

5.1.3 Bioassay

KCP monitored some workers for DU intake from 1959 to 1971 using a fluorophotometric method to 

measure the level of uranium in urine. Author unknown (1962) states that the method was sensitive 

to concentrations of uranium from 1 × 10-10 to 5 × 10-11 g per 0.25 g of sodium fluoride with a precision 

of ±10%. This sensitivity equates to 0.5 to 1 μg U/L of urine. However, this sensitivity could be the 

theoretical best based on ultrapure water blanks rather than urine blanks. The urine volume for 

bioassay analysis was 0.1 mL, and the smallest amount of uranium used to determine a standard 

curve was 1 × 10-9 g. The urine concentration that equates to the lowest uranium quantity of the 

standard curve is 10 μg/L. Bioassay data for four individuals (Nasca 2005b) shows that 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 29 of 78

Table 5-3. Measured resultsa and lognormal statistical parameters of DU in workplace air (μCi/cm3).b

Year

Number of 

measurements

Average of 

measurements

Maximum of 

measurements GM 95% GSD

1958 22 7.18E-12 4.90E-11 4.01E-13 1.74E-10 4.02E+01

1959 27 8.82E-13 1.22E-11 2.89E-13 2.53E-12 3.74E+00

1960 33 1.32E-12 1.50E-11 3.41E-13 3.94E-12 4.43E+00

1961 31 1.00E-12 2.04E-11 1.97E-13 1.52E-12 3.46E+00

1962 31 7.73E-13 1.13E-11 2.50E-13 2.03E-12 3.58E+00

1963 31 1.25E-12 1.63E-11 2.47E-13 1.90E-12 3.46E+00

1964 31 2.21E-12 3.90E-11 3.91E-13 2.98E-12 3.44E+00

1965 31 1.99E-13 8.70E-13 1.05E-13 8.02E-13 3.45E+00

1966 23 7.01E-13 6.24E-12 2.00E-13 2.00E-12 4.06E+00

1967 22 1.40E-12 1.30E-11 5.70E-13 3.12E-12 2.81E+00

1968 19 1.21E-12 9.88E-12 2.31E-13 3.47E-12 5.19E+00

1969 19 1.88E-11 8.55E-11 3.88E-12 1.42E-10 8.92E+00

1970 19 7.32E-14 5.91E-13 4.02E-14 1.98E-13 2.64E+00

a. All departments.

b. Based on maximum measured workplace airborne uranium concentrations at several monitoring locations.

concentrations as low as 1 μg U/L were recorded. However, most sites using fluorophotometry at this 

time were claiming more modest detection levels. For example, Hanford reported 4 μg/L 

(ORAUT 2015a), Paducah reported 10 μg/L (ORAUT 2012b), and the University of Rochester (used 

by many atomic weapons employers) reported 5 to 10 μg/L (ORAUT 2010). Unless there is 

information to the contrary in the claimant records, a minimum detectable amount of 10 ug/L is to be 

assumed. 

The frequency of bioassay analysis for KCP personnel who worked with DU powders is not known. 

The available data are annual and might be the sum of one or more bioassay measurements. If the 

individual case information does not contain additional information, dose reconstructors should make 

the assumption that the recorded bioassay quantities represent a single bioassay measurement at the 

end of the calendar year.

By procedure (Bendix undated), KCP was to bioassay for uranium in the urine of workers in radiation 

areas 20D, 34C, and 443E-20 twice a year (May and November). However, the actual frequency of 

bioassay analysis for KCP personnel varied from person to person and from year to year (Nasca 

2005b). The staff recorded bioassay data on either the individual’s film badge envelopes or the 

annual 3- by 5.5-in. radiation exposure record (Nasca 2005b). The dates and results of individual 

bioassay results are in each individual’s dosimetry file. 

The only available electronic bioassay data are the numeric sums of all bioassay measurements 

during the year for an individual (Nasca 2004d). However, they could be the sum of one or more 

bioassay measurements because the data do not include the number of measurements. Bioassay 

data from four individuals (Nasca 2005b) revealed the number of bioassay samples per year ranged 

from zero to six. Zero samples per year means that there are gaps in the bioassay record where one 

or more years of no bioassay data are bracketed by years for which there are bioassay data. In 1960 

and 1961, there appears to have been more urine sampling and the results were higher than for other 

years. The available records contain no explanation for the increase. There are no known records of 

an incident involving DU powder in those years (Nasca 2005a).

Table 5-4 summarizes the analysis of the electronic bioassay records (Nasca 2004d). These data 

show a peak in 1960 and 1961. The peak is apparently not the result of an incident (Nasca 2005c) 

but could be due to a large number of bioassay samples in those years for each worker. The 

bioassay data for 1971 are very low, less than the sensitivity level. The low bioassay levels might 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 30 of 78

indicate no intakes of uranium during that year. As noted above, the excreta data in Table 5-4 

represent the sum of an unstated number of bioassay measurements.

Table 5-4. Measured annual results, lognormal statistical parameters, and chronic intakes of 

recorded DU in urine.

a 

Year

Number 

of 

workers 

reportedb

Mean 

concentration 

(μg/L)b

Maximum 

concentration 

(μg/L)b

Median 

concentration 

(μg/L)

GSD 

(μg/L)

Chronic 

intakes, 

5thc

(pCi/d)

Chronic 

intakes, 

medianc

(pCi/d)

Chronic 

intakes, 

95thc

(pCi/d)

1958d N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.46E+02

See noted

8.91E+02 5.43E+03

1959 214 4.125 52.60 2.642 2.675 1.05E+02 6.42E+02 3.92E+03

1960 281 36.58 140. 19.53 3.813 7.79E+02 4.75E+03 2.89E+04

1961 123 51.40 192.1 37.44 2.402 1.49E+03 9.10E+03 5.55E+04

1962 148 4.327 15.75 3.162 2.508 1.26E+02 7.69E+02 4.69E+03

1963 211 10.96 72.00 7.564 2.532 3.02E+02 1.84E+03 1.12E+04

1964 219 5.627 78.38 3.888 2.431 1.55E+02 9.46E+02 5.76E+03

1965 175 9.572 38.00 5.583 3.422 2.23E+02 1.36E+03 8.27E+03

1966 223 6.432 45.05 4.214 2.640 1.68E+02 1.02E+03 6.24E+03

1967 159 5.438 21.50 3.574 2.713 1.43E+02 8.69E+02 5.30E+03

1968 11 6.055 6.600 6.052 1.029 2.42E+02 1.47E+03 8.97E+03

1969 1 0.15 0.150 0.150 1.000 5.99E+00 3.65E+01 2.22E+02

1970 59 11.64 45.00 7.576 2.686 3.02E+02 1.84E+03 1.12E+04

1971 47 0.03596 0.1000 0.02993 1.903 1.19E+00 7.28E+00 4.44E+01

ALL 1,871 14.1 192.1 5.5 4.7 N/A N/A N/A

a. All bioassay measurements: N/A = not applicable. 

b. The recorded annual sum of urine concentration is the sum of all bioassay results for the year. There is one sum for 

each person-year record. The listed statistics are based on the analysis of the data, which are the sums of all bioassay 

data for every person for that year.

c. Chronic intakes that produce the urinary excretion per day on the 365th day of intakes corresponding to the GM

excretion from the lognormal fit and 5th and 95th percentile intakes using a GSD of 3. Assumes 5-μm AMAD particle 

size; intakes for 1-μm AMAD particle size, 10.97 g/cm3 density, and absorption type S are smaller.

d. 1958 intakes based on air sampling. See discussion below.

Because these data are the sum of all bioassay measurements for each person in each year, they 

represent the highest possible bioassay result. The use of the default 5-μm AMAD particle size in 

estimating the intakes also produces a conservatively high result, but the more likely 1-μm AMAD 

particle size and density of uranium oxide would result in smaller intakes. Therefore, the intakes in 

Table 5-4 are overestimates when the dose reconstruction includes the whole of each year’s intake. 

Dose reconstructors should use the different percentile intakes from Table 5-4 with the types of 

exposure Section 5.1.4 discusses.

Due to the nature of the work at KCP, and because no accident reports are available or likely to exist, 

it is reasonable to assume that intakes of DU from 1959 through 1971 were chronic unless the 

worker’s dosimetry records indicate otherwise.

The persons who received bioassay for uranium had Organization Codes 530001 and 531002. 

Table 5-5 lists the number of bioassay results for the two organizations and the occupations that had 

bioassay results. Organization Code 531002 refers to the DOE contractor that operated KCP 

(e.g., Bendix, Allied-Signal), and Code 530001 refers to DOE workers, so there is little information 

about what groups of workers were involved. The data in Table 5-5 indicate that nearly all types of 

workers could have received exposures from uranium. The information in the table be useful to dose 

reconstructors if a worker’s job description and organization code are available. However, see 

Section 5.1.4 for more general instructions for unmonitored workers. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 31 of 78

Table 5-5. Number of recorded bioassay measurements and average of measurements for 1959 

through 1971.

a

Occupation 

description

Occupation 

code

Number in 

organization 

code 530001

Number in 

organization 

code 531002 Total

Total 

of bioassay 

measurementsb

(μg/L)

Average 

of bioassay 

measurementsc

(μg/L)

Managers and 

administrators

110 10 342 352 3,210.44 9.12

Engineers 160 NA 228 228 2,017.84 8.85

Scientists 170 NA 15 15 35.16 2.34

Health physicists 184 3 NA 3 12.90 4.30

Miscellaneous 

professionals

200 NA 17 17 149.64 8.80

Repair technician 350 NA 44 44 580.58 13.19

Health technician 360 NA 3 3 16.17 5.39

Technologist, 

engineering

370 NA 38 38 519.03 13.66

Miscellaneous 

technicians

390 NA 47 47 418.52 8.90

Administrative 

support/clerical/work 

planners

450 NA 60 60 717.74 11.96

Fire fighter 512 NA 58 58 228.33 3.94

Security inspector & 

guard

513 3 4 7 11.25 1.61

Food service 

employees

521 NA 1 1 0.00 0.00

Custodian/janitor 524 NA 11 11 31.33 2.85

Mechanics/repairers 610 NA 350 350 2,687.45 7.68

Electrician 643 NA 153 153 1,371.99 8.97

Pipe fitter 645 NA 177 177 1,566.47 8.85

Machinist 681 NA 152 152 2,140.77 14.08

Sheet metal worker 682 NA 2 2 0.00 0.00

Operators, 

plant/system/utility

690 NA 2 2 2.45 1.23

Machine 

setup/operators

710 5 28 33 262.95 7.97

Welders/solderers 771 NA 11 11 77.10 7.01

Miscellaneous 

precision/production 

workers

780 14 640 654 6,894.03 10.54

NA 781 NA 1 1 14.05 14.05

Drivers 840 NA 28 28 217.13 7.75

Handlers/laborers/hel

pers

850 NA 145 145 1,279.55 8.82

All groups N/A N/A N/A 2,592 24,472.87 9.44

a. NA = not available; N/A = not applicable.

b. Grand total of all bioassay measurements for that occupational code for all years (1959 to 1971).

c. Average of recorded bioassay measurements.

Table 5-5 also lists the sum of all bioassay results, for all years, for each occupational code and the 

average of the bioassay measurements for each code. The Managers and Administrators occupation 

category included job estimators who were commonly in the work areas.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 32 of 78

The electronic record of uranium bioassay contains the sum of all measurements during the year for 

the worker. The record does not indicate the number of samples that make up the recorded 

measurement. The results of individual measurements were written on cards that are nearly illegible.

5.1.4 Unmonitored Workers 

Table 5-4 lists the statistical parameters of measured DU concentrations in the urine of KCP workers 

and the associated intakes for the years for which urine data are available. Table 5-5 provides some 

insight about job categories and various departments (Author unknown 2014; KCP 1962). The 

uncertainties in the intakes in Table 5-4 do not warrant specific intakes for each job category. 

However, the data do indicate four exposure categories: 

1. Workers with routine exposure to airborne or loose material, 

2. Workers with occasional exposure, 

3. Workers with rare exposure or exposure only to very low workplace airborne or contamination 

levels, and 

4. Workers with little or no potential for radiological exposure. 

Dose reconstructors should assign intakes for unmonitored workers as follows:

• Category 1, 95th percentile; 

• Category 2, GM; 

• Category 3, environmental exposure per Section 4.0.

The dose reconstructor should use the information in Table 5-5, the worker’s radiation exposure file, 

the computer-assisted interviews, and ORAUT-OTIB-0014, Technical Information Bulletin – 

Assignment of Environmental Internal Doses for Employees Not Exposed to Airborne Radionuclides 

in the Workplace (ORAUT 2004) to assign unmonitored workers to exposure categories. Generally, 

the occupations for which there are no known bioassay data are nurses, miscellaneous repairers and 

construction workers, and equipment operators. 

The method of calculation of the intakes in Table 5-4 means dose reconstructions must apply the full

intake to ensure a result favorable to the claimant, even if the employee only worked part of the year. 

For 1958, worker records are unlikely to contain bioassay results, but the air sample data indicate 

airborne contamination. For 1958, dose reconstructors should assume the following chronic intakes:

• Category 1, 5,430 pCi/d; 

• Category 2, 891 pCi/d;

• Category 3, environmental exposure per Section 4.0.

The GM intake for 1958 is the ratio of the GM air concentrations for 1958 to 1959 from the lognormal 

distributions in Table 5-3 times the GM intake for 1959 in Table 5-4. The default GSD of 3 was 

applied to the GM intake for 1958 to determine the 5th- and 95th-percentile intakes. This is consistent

with the GSD for the intakes for the other years in Table 5-4. 

Because several maximizing assumptions affect the intakes in Table 5-4, for doses based on these 

intakes dose reconstructors should enter the uncertainty distribution into IREP as constants. The 

intakes should be entered as U-234, type S.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 33 of 78

5.2 OTHER NUCLIDES

The sections below discuss the use of other radioactive material along with two incidents during the 

history of KCP.

KCP operations do include the use of several radioactive sources that can be fragile and relatively 

unsealed, as occurred with the 147Pm source incident. However, any intakes from various smaller

sources would probably be comparatively insignificant.

5.2.1 Natural Uranium Operations, May 1, 1950, to February 28, 1955

Section 2.2 provides details about work at KCP work from May 1, 1950, to February 28, 1955, that 

might have resulted in uranium contamination.

A chronological list of radioactive materials at KCP (Schiltz 1963, p. 2–17) records inspection and 

assembly of natural uranium components in Department 3A of the Main Manufacturing Building from 

May 1950 through February 1955. The list also documents natural uranium machining in Department 

49X of the Main Manufacturing Building from February 1951 to December 1952. The machining 

operations would likely have generated more airborne activity than inspection and assembly. 

However, dose reconstructors should assume machining operations occurred in both areas from 

May 1, 1950, to February 28, 1955.

Departments 3A and 49X were enclosed areas. Only workers on the permanent access list 

(maintained by the Security, Medical and Safety Departments) could enter. No women were 

permitted in these areas. An “Exclusion Area Register” documented worker entrances (Ceek 1950; 

Thiel 1955; Schiltz 1962; Stowers 1951b; BAC 1952).

Only Departments 3A and 49X directly handled this uranium. The uranium was in containers for 

activities in the Receiving, Internal Transportation, and Shipping areas (Schiltz 1963, pp. 2–17).

The KCP machining process is well documented. The amounts of materials and types of machines 

are known, as are the sequence and description of machining steps, including cutting speeds 

(Stowers 1951c). KCP used a very high coolant flow rate (coolant type was Texaco Soluble Oil C)

and made provisions for reclamation of scrap material, chips, dust, and oxides. The plant had 

designated storage areas for raw material, finished metal, and reclaimed waste. An accountability 

officer tracked metal, and uranium metal transportation was always under the supervision of a security 

guard (Author unknown 1951).

KCP implemented worker protection and monitoring for this work, also known as Project Royal, under 

AEC Safety Bulletin #5 (Stowers 1951a).

NIOSH compared the operations and known and postulated conditions for KCP to those for 

determination of “air sampling data for facilities machining uranium” in Table 7.5 of Battelle-TBD-6000

(NIOSH 2011). To accomplish this, NIOSH reviewed a study used as the foundation for radionuclide 

intake derivations related to uranium machining in Battelle-TBD-6000. NIOSH finds The Industrial 

Hygiene of Uranium Fabrication (Harris, 1958) to be a bounding approximation of KCP work activities 

under consideration. Therefore, dose reconstructors can estimate KCP worker intakes during natural 

uranium operations from 1951 to December 31, 1955, using Battelle-TBD-6000 Table 7.8 for 

inhalation intakes and Table 7.9 for ingestion intakes. Table 5-6 reproduces those values. Dose 

reconstructors should enter these intakes as U-234, type S, with a distribution of constant.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 34 of 78

Table 5-6. Intake rates for uranium machining and material handling, 

Departments 3A and 49X, May 1, 1950, to February 28, 1955.

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion

(pCi/d)

Operator 18,016 369

General Laborer 9,008 185

Supervisor 4,504 92

Clerical 450 9.2

5.2.2 Uranium Postoperations Period, March 1, 1955, to August 31, 1959

The best method for estimating internal exposure at KCP after natural uranium operations ceased in 

1955 until the start of the KCP urinalysis program in 1959 is to use the maximum gross-alpha 

measured air sample (49 pCi/m3

) from before the start of large-scale DU machining and assume that 

concentration remained constant during this postoperations period. Dose reconstructors should 

assume machine operators in Departments 3A and 49X breathed this air concentration for 2,000 hr/yr. 

Dose reconstructors should use the method in Battelle-TBD-6000 (NIOSH 2011) to determine air 

concentrations for classes of workers that had less exposure potential or spent less time in 

Departments 3A and 49X than the machine operators. Dose reconstructors should assume air 

concentration for the general laborers was half that for the operators. Supervisors had half the air 

concentration of the general laborers. Other worker types, such as clerical workers, had 10% of the 

supervisors’ air concentration. 

The analysis used the methods of OCAS-TIB-009 (NIOSH 2004) to calculate the ingestion rates 

(Table 5-7). Dose reconstructors should enter these intakes as U-234, type S, with a distribution of 

constant.

Table 5-7. Intake rates for uranium machining and material handling, 

Departments 3A and 49X, March 1, 1955, to August 31, 1959.

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 322 6.71

General Laborers 161 3.36

Supervisors 80.6 1.68

Administrative Workers 8.06 0.168

5.2.3 Uranium Postoperations Period, January 1, 1972, to May 31, 1984

Uranium residual data provides the best method for reconstruction doses to workers in former 

uranium operations areas for uranium operations during this period, before D&D. 

The maximum measured surface contamination survey during DU operations provided the basis to 

model a starting point air concentration for this period. That maximum value during operations of

4.5 × 106 dpm/m2 alpha reduced over time until the initial D&D characterization survey on May 31, 

1984.

Applying a resuspension factor of 1 × 10-5

/m yields an air concentration of 45 dpm/m3 for the start of 

the postoperations period on January 1, 1972.

The characterization survey before D&D began reported the maximum “accessible” contamination 

level as 6 × 104 dpm/m2

. Applying a resuspension factor of 1 × 10-5/m yields an air concentration of 

0.6 dpm/m3 for the end of the postoperations period on May 31, 1984.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 35 of 78

These two concentrations were inserted into the exponential interpolation (depletion) equation from 

ORAUT-OTIB-0070 (ORAUT 2012c): 

(5-1) − ÷ − = = × 1984 1972 4 ln( 9 52 10 A A) λ .

t

This depletion rate (9.52 × 10-4/d) along with the initial air concentration determined the remaining 

activity available for inhalation and ingestion for each year of this period. The analysis assumed 

machine operators breathed air at this concentration for 2,000 hr/yr at a rate of 1.2 m3

/hr. 

The analysis used the method in Battelle-TBD-6000 (NIOSH 2011) to determine air concentrations for 

classes of workers with exposure potential or who spent less time in Departments 3A and 49X (later 

renamed as D20, D22, D34, D61) than the machine operators. The analysis assumed the air 

concentration for general laborers was that for the operators, that supervisors had half the 

concentration of general laborers, and that all other worker types, such as those performing primarily 

administrative and clerical duties with no reason to enter the restricted, radiological areas, had 10% of 

the supervisors’ concentration.

The analysis used the methods of OCAS-TIB-009 (NIOSH 2004) to calculate the ingestion rates 

(Table 5-8).

Table 5-8. Intake rates for uranium machining and material handling, Departments 3A and 49X, 

January 1, 1972, to May 31, 1984 . Dose reconstructors should enter these intakes as U-234, type S, 

with a distribution of constant.

1972, fraction remaining 1.00E+00

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 1.33E+02 2.77E+00

General Laborers 6.67E+01 1.39E+00

Supervisors 3.33E+01 6.94E-01

Administrative Workers 3.33E+00 6.94E-02

1973, fraction remaining 7.06E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 9.41E+01 1.96E+00

General Laborers 4.73E+01 9.82E-01

Supervisors 2.36E+01 4.91E-01

Administrative Workers 2.36E+00 4.91E-02

1974, fraction remaining 4.99E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 6.67E+01 1.39E+00

General Laborers 3.32E+01 6.94E-01

Supervisors 1.66E+01 3.46E-01

Administrative Workers 1.66E+00 3.46E-02
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 36 of 78

1975, fraction remaining 3.53E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 4.68E+01 9.77E-01

General Laborers 2.35E+01 4.91E-01

Supervisors 1.18E+01 2.45E-01

Administrative Workers 1.18E+00 2.45E-02

1976, fraction remaining 2.49E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 3.32E+01 6.94E-01

General Laborers 1.66E+01 3.46E-01

Supervisors 8.29E+00 1.73E-01

Administrative Workers 8.29E-01 1.73E-02

1977, fraction remaining 1.76E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 2.35E+01 4.86E-01

General Laborers 1.17E+01 2.44E-01

Supervisors 5.86E+00 1.22E-01

Administrative Workers 5.86E-01 1.22E-02

1978, fraction remaining 1.24E–01

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 1.66E+01 3.45E-01

General Laborers 8.29E+00 1.73E-01

Supervisors 4.14E+00 8.65E-02

Administrative Workers 4.14E-01 8.65E-03

1979, fraction remaining 8.78E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 1.17E+01 2.44E-01

General Laborers 5.86E+00 1.22E-01

Supervisors 2.93E+00 6.08E-02

Administrative Workers 2.93E-01 6.08E-03

1980, fraction remaining 6.20E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 8.29E+00 1.72E-01

General Laborers 4.14E+00 8.60E-02

Supervisors 2.07E+00 4.31E-02

Administrative Workers 2.07E-01 4.31E-03

1981, fraction remaining 4.38E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 5.86E+00 1.22E-01

General Laborers 2.92E+00 6.08E-02

Supervisors 1.46E+00 3.05E-02

Administrative Workers 1.46E-01 3.05E-03
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 37 of 78

1982, fraction remaining 3.10E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 4.13E+00 8.60E-02

General Laborers 2.06E+00 4.30E-02

Supervisors 1.03E+00 2.15E-02

Administrative Workers 1.03E-01 2.15E-03

1983, fraction remaining 2.19E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 2.91E+00 6.08E-02

General Laborers 1.46E+00 3.04E-02

Supervisors 7.30E-01 1.52E-02

Administrative Workers 7.30E-02 1.52E-03

January 1 to May 31, 1984, fraction remaining 1.55E–02

Job title

Inhalation 

(pCi/d)

Ingestion 

(pCi/d)

Machine Operators 2.06E+00 4.29E-02

General Laborers 1.03E+00 2.14E-02

Supervisors 5.14E-01 1.07E-02

Administrative Workers 5.14E-02 1.07E-03

5.2.4 Magnesium-Thorium Exposures, August 23, 1961, to March 31, 1963, and August 28, 

1970, to December 31, 1977

Section 2.2 provides details about KCP work during these two periods with the potential to produce

thorium contamination.

An engineering control limit of 3 × 10-11 μCi/mL alpha for exposure during Mg-Th operations was 

established in 1959 (Foster ca. 1959, p. 16). KCP performed gross alpha fixed-filter air monitoring 

from 1958 through 1971 in the Main Manufacturing Building and maintained operations at 2.85 × 10-12

μCi/mL (average measured level for the period).

In 1970, an evaluation of Mg-Th machining operations in the Model Shop validated that the process 

did not generate airborne radioactivity. The staff used breathing-zone air samplers at each machining 

station during operation. The airborne levels during this test were at background (0 cpm) for longlived activity and <3.22 × 10-9 μCi/mL for short-lived activity. Although the sensitivity of these results 

is not adequate for dose reconstruction, it does add to the argument that this process probably did not 

result in airborne contamination levels above the engineering control limit.

To assess exposures from Mg-Th operations, the analysis assigned the engineering control limit of 

3 × 10-11 μCi/mL alpha as a constant distribution to estimate an exposure rate for identified Mg-Th 

workers (e.g., Mg-Th on the worker’s medical card). In addition, the analysis used the method in 

Battelle-TBD-6000 (NIOSH 2011) to determine air concentrations for classes of workers that had less 

exposure potential or spent less time in the Mg-Th machining areas (Department 20 or the Model 

Shop, a.k.a. D-823 and D851) than the machine operators. The exposure rate to general laborers is 

half of the operator’s exposure rate, and the exposure to supervisors is half that of general laborers. 

For all other worker types, such as those with primarily administrative and clerical duties and no 

reason to enter the restricted, radiological areas, the exposure rate is 10% of that for supervisors. 

Table 5-9 provides ingestion intake rates based on guidance in OCAS-TIB-009 (NIOSH 2004). 

Table 5-10 provides the percent alpha activities of the radionuclides of concern in both triple-
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 38 of 78

separated and natural thorium. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 provide inhalation and ingestion intake rates for 

Operators, respectively for triple-separated thorium. Tables 5-13 and 5-14 provide the same for 

natural thorium. 

Dose reconstructors should compare the resulting doses for triple-seperated versus natural thorium 

intakes, and apply the higher doses. Dose reconstructors should apply all intakes as constants, types 

M and S. For partial years, dose reconstructors should apply daily intakes for employment within the 

dates for each year. The exposure rate to general laborers is half of the operator’s exposure rate, and 

the exposure to supervisors is half that of general laborers. For all other worker types, such as those 

with primarily administrative and clerical duties and no reason to enter the restricted, radiological 

areas, the exposure rate is 10% of that for supervisors. 

Table 5-9. Alpha intake rates from Mg-Th operations, August 23, 1961, to 

March 31, 1963, and August 28, 1970, to December 31, 1977.

Job Category

Inhalation

(dpm/calendar d)

Ingestion

(dpm/calendar d)

Operator 438 9.1

General Laborer 219 4.6

Supervisor 109 2.3

Administrative 11 0.2

Table 5-10. Alpha ratios (percent alpha activity).

Radionuclide Th-232 Ac-228 b Ra-228 b Th-228 Ra-224

Triple-separated a, c 1 (72.46%) Not 

applicable

Not 

applicable

0.19 

(13.77%)

0.19 

(13.77%)

Natural a 1 (33.33%) Not 

applicable

Not 

applicable

1 (33.33%) 1 (33.33%)

a. The more favorable of the two mixtures should be used to assess the gross alpha intake rates.

b. Beta emitter. Activity assumed equivalent to Th-228.

c. Based on ORAUT-OTIB-0076, Guiding Reconstruction of Intakes of Thorium Resulting from Nuclear 

Weapons Programs assuming Triple Separated Thorium (ORAUT 2014b) 

Table 5-11. Inhalation intake rates for triple-separated thorium 

(pCi/d) for Operators.

Dates Th-232

Ac-228, Ra-228, 

Th-228, Ra-224

8/23/1961-

12/31/1961

142.94 27.16

1962 142.94 27.16

1/1/1963-3/31/1963 142.94 27.16

8/28/1970-

12/31/1970

142.94 27.16

1971 142.94 27.16

1972 142.94 27.16

1973 142.94 27.16

1974 142.94 27.16

1975 142.94 27.16

1976 142.94 27.16

1977 142.94 27.16
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 39 of 78

Table 5-12. Ingestion intake rates for triple-separated thorium 

(pCi/day) for Operators.

Dates Th-232

Ac-228, Ra-228, Th228, Ra-224

8/23/1961-

12/31/1961

2.98 0.57

1962 2.98 0.57

1/1/1963-3/31/1963 2.98 0.57

8/28/1970-

12/31/1970

2.98 0.57

1971 2.98 0.57

1972 2.98 0.57

1973 2.98 0.57

1974 2.98 0.57

1975 2.98 0.57

1976 2.98 0.57

1977 2.98 0.57

Table 5-13. Inhalation rates for natural thorium

(pCi/d) for Operators. Apply the intake for all 

nuclides listed.

Date

Th-232, Ac-228, 

Ra-228, Th-228, 

Ra-224

8/23/1961-12/31/1961 65.75

1962 65.75

1/1/1963-3/31/1963 65.75

8/28/1970-12/31/1970 65.75

1971 65.75

1972 65.75

1973 65.75

1974 65.75

1975 65.75

1976 65.75

1977 65.75

Table 5-14. Ingestion intake rates for natural 

thorium (pCi/d) for Operators.

Date

Th-232, Ac-228, 

Ra-228, Th-228, 

Ra-224

8/23/1961-12/31/1961 1.37

1962 1.37

1/1/1963-3/31/1963 1.37

8/28/1970-12/31/1970 1.37

1971 1.37

1972 1.37

1973 1.37

1974 1.37

1975 1.37

1976 1.37

1977 1.37
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 40 of 78

5.2.5 Routine Radiological Waste Handlers and Decontamination Workers

The records show a category of workers (laborers), who performed routine radioactive waste 

handling, radiation area maintenance, housekeeping, and decontamination, that is different from 

uranium or thorium workers. Based on interviews, these workers did not receive routine monitoring. 

Several of these workers had bioassays in their records; dose reconstructors should use those 

records when available.

Interviews at KCP in March 2015 revealed that laborers had a substantial role in cleaning floors, walls, 

and equipment, whether on a day-to-day basis or in periodic room cleanups, and that a clear 

distinction was made between “laborers” who handled cleaning duties and various crafts responsible 

for moving, maintaining, and operating equipment such as lathes. While the “KCP machine repair 

group” was responsible for taking equipment apart, the laborers were responsible for cleaning the 

internal parts of that equipment (Fitzgerald 2015).

To assign doses to unmonitored personnel doing this work, dose reconstructors should use the 

guidance in Section 5.1.4 and assigning them to exposure category 2 (i.e., workers with occasional

exposure).

5.2.6 Thorium Oxide Powder Operations

Part of a chronological list of radioactive material at KCP states, “July 23, 1958 to July 1959 –

Thorium oxide ThO2 powder was handled in the plant” (Schiltz 1963, p. 12). Inventories of 

radiological sources show use of some ThO2 sources and that KCP made a thorium nitrate solution at 

a rate of 20 g/yr (Allied-Signal 1989–1990). With the currently available information, including 

personal communication with KCP site experts (ORAUT 2013b), it appears ThO2 operations consisted 

only of laboratory analysis and solution preparation for analytical procedures. These operations 

occurred under hoods and did not present an exposure potential. 

5.2.7 Tritium Operations

5.2.7.1 Hi-Lo Switch Plates, 1963 to 1968

A February 8, 1963, memorandum shows KCP used tritiated phosphor in the production of 

luminescent dials. Based on memos that discuss the work with the phosphor on Hi-Lo switch plates, 

KCP workers were exposed to tritium for this work between 1963 and 1968. 

The chemical form of the tritium in the phosphor was an organic compound known as Tung Oil, also 

known as China Wood Oil (used as a finish in woodworking). The Sigma-Aldrich safety data sheet 

states Tung Oil is an ester of eleostearic acid and other fatty acids (Sigma-Aldrich 2015). It is a waxy 

solid with a near-zero vapor pressure at room temperature, which makes inhalation unlikely. The data 

sheet gives no precautions and instructs the user to wash it off with soap and water if it gets on the 

skin. In addition, Eucerin pH5 hand cream contains stearic acid as a thickening agent. Because the 

tritium was in a stearic acid similar to those in common hand creams, with properties that would cause 

it to coagulate or thicken and dry on the skin, this provides a plausible skin-contact mechanism for 

transfers of organically bound tritium through a worker’s skin.

In consideration of these physical characteristics and KCP operations, the most probable exposure 

pathway would have been through skin absorption. However, there would have been a slow and 

incomplete translocation of surface contamination across the skin membrane. To be favorable to 

claimants, the analysis assumed instantaneous 100% activity transport across skin.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 41 of 78

KCP had 500 orders and had shipped 181 units by February 1966 (Lovell 1966). To assess the 

contamination level on 330 switch plates, the analysis used data from 110 swipes in 1965 (Bendix 

1965). Fit to a lognormal distribution, the data have a geometric mean (GM) of 4,246 dpm/100 cm2

and a GSD of 2.32. The upper 95th-percentile value of this distribution is 16,900 dpm/100 cm2

, which 

the analysis assumed is the bounding exposure scenario for the contamination level.

No documentation on the size of the Hi-Lo switches is available other than their thickness of 

0.1875 in, so the analysis assumed they were about the size of a plate covering a light switch or 

standard wall outlet, two-sided (front and back), and nominally 100 cm2 on each side for a total of 

200 cm2

. This is reasonable based on the documentation that each plate was soaked in 100 mL of 

distilled water for the 24-hour leak test determinations. A plate of this size would have been covered 

and soaked in this volume of water. Therefore, each switch plate would have had 33,800 dpm 

distributed over the entire surface.

The analysis further assumed the worker handled each switch plate enough for all of the surface 

contamination to transferred to the skin, which completely absorbed it. Procurement records indicate 

KCP ordered at least 500 of the plates. Therefore, workers could have handled several per day over 

the intermittent manufacturing periods. Based on these procurement records, the analysis assumed a 

worker handled three switch plates each day. This means that the bounding intake rate of organically 

bound tritium through skin absorption would be 101,400 dpm (1,690 Bq). This bounding intake rate 

would have been chronic throughout the year for 1963 through 1968.

Using the DCFs for organically bound tritium from ICRP Publication 68 (ICRP 1994b) (4.1 × 10-9

rem/Bq for all organs), the worker dose would be 1.73 mrem/yr. Dose reconstructors should apply 

this dose to all radiological workers and apply a constant distribution.

5.2.7.2 Manufacturing of Tritium Monitors, 1959 to 1975

Both the military and AEC used these instruments during nuclear testing. Manufacturing began in 

1959 and produced four monitoring kits in February 1960 (Schiltz 1959). Manufacturing continued 

periodically through the 1970s. 

At first, in 1959, KCP purchased small bottles of standard solution (400 mL of 250 μCi/L) from the 

Sandia National Laboratories and stored them under ventilation until use or packaging for shipment 

with a completed urinalysis kit. By 1964, the standardized tritiated water came in 1-gal units KCP 

repackaged into 400 mL bottles. The date of this change (sometime between 1959 and 1964) is not 

known. There are records from 1964 of two shipments of 8 gal of standardized tritiated water for a 

total of 16 gal (60,600 mL). KCP shipped a 400-mL bottle of the calibration standard solution with 

each urinalysis kit. Decanting the gallon-sized units into 400 mL bottles would result in nominally 

150 bottles of standard solution. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that about 150 decanting 

operations occurred in 1964. To ensure results favorable to claimants, the analysis assumed some 

part of the decanting operation occurred in the chemistry laboratory every workday (250 days per 

year) beginning in 1959 and ending in 1975.

Based on the care that went into the procurement process and cautionary notes about handling that in 

the purchase order, it is reasonable to assume the chemistry technicians who handled the 

standardized tritiated water would have been careful with it due both to its value and to its hazardous 

nature. KCP stored the unopened bottles it procured in 1959 under ventilation when not in use. 

Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume all work with standard tritiated water, including decanting 

from one bottle to another, would have taken place under a ventilated enclosure such as a fume hood.

Although decanting could have occurred on a single day soon after receipt, it is possible KCP filled 

smaller bottles in separate operations. The process of receiving and transfer tritiated water from 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 42 of 78

Sandia in gallon bottles and transferring some of the liquid to smaller volumes (i.e., 400 mL and about 

2.5-mL vials), could have provided reasonable opportunity for losses through unreported splashes or 

spills. It is plausible that these small splashes or spills occurred during the liquid-transfer processes in 

the preparation of the final standard’s volumetric configuration.

For this bounding scenario, the analysis assumed all of a 400-mL bottle of tritiated water spilled over 

the course of a year and that a worker absorbed all of it. This is favorable to claimants because there 

are no known reports of incidents or spills during the tritiated water decanting. The analysis also 

assumed none of the water evaporated, which the room or hood ventilation systems would have 

removed. This assumption allows the worker’s skin to absorb the entire spilled volume (i.e., 400 mL 

of 250 μCi/L tritiated water). The activity in the 400 mL of standardized tritiated water was 100 μCi. A 

swipe that collects 100% of the contamination of the spill area under these conditions would yield a 

total removable contamination level of 2.22 × 108 dpm. In this bounding scenario, this tritium 

contamination is completely transferred to the skin of the hand of the chemistry technician during the 

year. Therefore, the chemistry technician’s skin is contaminated with 2.22 × 108 dpm (3.7 × 106 Bq) of 

tritiated water on an annual basis. This bounding intake rate would have been chronic throughout the 

year for 1959 through 1975. 

Using the tritiated water DCF from ICRP Publication 68 (1.8 × 10-9 rem/Bq; ICRP 1994b), the worker 

dose would be 6.66 mrem/yr. Dose reconstructors should apply this dose to all radiological workers 

and apply a constant distribution.

5.2.8 Nickel Plating

There is evidence that KCP used 63Ni over an extended period in the manufacturing of tritium-in-air 

and urine monitoring instruments. This manufacturing involved plating 63Ni on a small aluminum 

metal coupon for use as an internal calibration standard.

Exposure occurred during small-scale chemical-plating operations because the plating solution 

contained 63Ni. A 1-in.2

 (Bendix 1984) 63Ni-plated area was incorporated into the precipitator plate 

(Courtright 1967a) of the Tritium in Air Monitor, Bendix/Sandia Model T446 Courtright 1967b).

The bounding dose to workers involves the potential inhalation of 63Ni from a microaerosol in the 

laboratory room that can result from aeration of the plating solution. The analysis assumed the plating 

shop operated without ventilation and that a bubbler stirred the plating bath. Bursting hemispherical 

bubbles at the surface of the plating solution produced aerosolized droplets of 63Ni. 

The analysis assumed the radioactivity uniformly distributed into the air of a 5- by 5-m room with a 

3-m ceiling height (75 m3 volume) and that the worker breathed at the standard ICRP Publication 66 

occupational breathing rate of 1.2 m3

/hr (ICRP 1994a). To be favorable to claimants, the analysis

further assumed that neither local exhaust ventilation nor room exhaust ventilation reduced the air 

concentration.

Uniformly mixing an activity of 6.37 × 10-3 μCi of 63Ni into this air volume results in an airborne activity 

concentration of 8.49 × 10-11 μCi/mL. Therefore, during the 60-minute plating operation, the worker 

would have inhaled 1.02 × 10-1 nCi, which is equivalent to 3.8 Bq. Assuming this operation occurred 

100 times each year, the annual intake rate would be 377 Bq. This results in a committed dose to all 

organs of less than 1 mrem. Therefore, dose reconstructions should not include dose from 63Ni. 

5.2.9 Decontamination and Decommissioning

In 1984, KCP contracted with Rockwell International Corporation to perform major facility D&D of the 

Main Manufacturing Building (Rockwell 1985). Phase I of the work began May 29, 1984, with a 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 43 of 78

survey to locate buried waste trenches and to measure radiological activity both in the trenches and in 

the Machining Area. Phase II occurred from August 7 to November 7, 1984, and involved the 

decontamination of the trenches and the Tool Setup Area of the Machining Area. Rockwell (1985) 

reports neither radiological contamination at the trenches nor radioactive or hazardous waste 

contamination in the surrounding soil. Phase III was the decontamination of the Inspection Area 

portion of the Machining Area in the Main Manufacturing Building. It occurred from August 15 to 

September 3, 1986. Preliminary surveys found fixed contamination only in floor cracks, holes, drains, 

and some surface spots on the concrete columns. During all three phases, Rockwell noted in their 

final reports KCP decontamination requirements were below U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

and American National Standards Institute requirements for release of an area for unrestricted use 

(Rockwell 1985). Further, the report states no personnel received radiation exposure and no internal 

deposition of radioactive material occurred as a result of the decontamination of the classified waste 

and machining areas (Rockwell 1985).

Monitoring for radioactive material during the Phase II decontamination of the trenches and Tool 

Setup Area of the Machining Area, and the Phase III decontamination of the Inspection Area of the 

Machining Area, included continuous air monitors, high-volume air samplers, and environmental 

samples to compare with preliminary samples. None of these monitoring activities indicated 

measureable radioactivity above background levels (Rockwell 1985).

Decontamination of the machining area consisted of the use of scabblers, concrete chipping 

hammers, and concrete saws that removed thin layers and small and large portions of concrete. 

During these activities, “radioactive materials vacuums” were used to control and remove any dust 

created from the decontamination activities. Continuous monitoring for airborne and removable 

activity recorded no levels above background (Rockwell 1985). Removal of floor drains consisted of 

cutting away the concrete that formed the drains and sumps, and then removing the soil underneath. 

Rockwell disposed of material from the sumps along with related items as radioactive waste.

Radioactive contamination levels during the survey of the machining area were as high as 500,000 

dpm/100 cm2 in drains and sumps and up to 1.75 million dpm/100 cm2 in cracks. The contamination 

was fixed. Personnel monitoring consisted of continuous air monitors, high-volume air samplers, and 

contamination surveys. None of these monitoring activities indicated measureable radioactivity above 

background levels (Rockwell 1985).

Table 5-15 provides the inhalation intake rate based on the air sample control level of 1 × 10-12

μCi/mL, a breathing rate 1.2 m3

/hr, and a period of 2,000 hr/yr. The table also provides the ingestion 

rate based on information in OCAS-TIB-009 (NIOSH 2004). Dose reconstructors should assign these 

intakes as 234U, Types M and S, using a constant distribution.

Table 5-15. Alpha intake rates from D&D of uranium operations areas, 

May 29, 1984, to November 7, 1984, and August 15, 1986, to September 3, 

1986.

Job category

Inhalation

(pCi/day)

Ingestion

(pCi/day)

All workers in 

Department 20 6.76 0.135 

5.3 RECYCLED URANIUM

For all DOE uranium after 1952, this analysis assumed the possibility that uranium from refineries was 

or contained recycled uranium. Table 5-16 provides the activity fractions for uranium intakes after 

1952 (NIOSH 2011). Dose reconstructors should evaluate the nuclides below by multiplying the 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 44 of 78

activity fraction times the uranium intake. Refer to ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction

(ORAUT 2014a) Table 3-1 for selection of solubility types for contaminants.

Table 5-16. Activity fraction of 

contaminant in recycled uranium.

Contaminant

Activity 

fraction

Pu-239 0.00246

Np-237 0.00182

Tc-99 0.379

Th-232 2.73E–06

Th-228 2.73E–06

5.4 INCIDENTS

An incident occurred on February 10, 1989, involving 147Pm. The response to the incident initially 

concluded, apparently in error, that an intake had occurred according to an extensive investigation 

(ASAC 1989). According to the report, DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiological 

Health Division representatives from the Missouri Department of Health were notified at the time of 

the incident. A DOE team of investigators arrived February 14 to assume technical management of 

the situation. Based on what were, in the end, false-positive bioassay results, investigators inspected 

the homes of four workers and found some contamination. There were many activities to identify the 

cause and extent of this contamination. Promethium-147 is a relatively low-energy, 100% betaemitting nuclide with maximum energy of 224.7 keV and average energy of 62 keV. Its half-life is 2.6 

years. The primary concern with this type of nuclide is direct skin contamination and intake. The 

report addressed the chronology of steps, and the results, to examine potential exposure and 

contamination. 

On August 12, 1987, KCP received a W80 Data Analyzer that contained erbium tritide from Sandia 

National Laboratories. Operations testing at Sandia exposed the analyzers to tritium and normally 

decontaminated them before returning them to KCP for follow-up testing. On September 30, 1987, a 

worker removed the analyzer’s protective cover. The outside cover had a visibly clean appearance, 

but the inside did not. The worker immediately replaced the cover and contacted the Health and 

Safety group. That group took swipe samples the next day inside and outside of the cover of the 

assembly and from nearby work surfaces. These detected contamination only on the inside of the 

cover at 986 dpm/100 cm2

. The plant returned the analyzer to Sandia for decontamination. Urinalysis 

for the worker who opened and closed the case indicated there was no detectable activity for tritium 

as erbium tritide. 

There were other events of tritium contamination reported at KCP. There are reports of four instances 

where contamination greater than 100 dpm/100 cm2 was detected at KCP during acceptance tests in 

1985 and 1988 (Evans 1985, 1988a, 1988b). There are three other events described as unusual 

occurrences where low-levels of contamination were discovered at KCP from 1987 to 1990 (Krueger

and Meunier 1987; Kircher 1990). Because of these incidents, Sandia and KCP decided to revise 

their procedures to protect against similar incidents (Krueger and Meunier 1987). In August 2013, 

KCP Health Physics stated this incident was unique and did not reoccur (ORAUT 2013b).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 45 of 78

6.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE

As described in Section 2.0, AEC operations at KCP began in 1949. Some of the information about 

the early history of nuclear weapons work is classified, and not all details of events at that time are 

clear. The primary work activity that might have involved external radiation exposure was fabrication 

and quality control testing of nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons.

6.1 BASIS OF COMPARISON

Since the initiation of the Manhattan Engineer District (a DOE predecessor agency) project in the 

early 1940s, different DOE facilities have used various concepts and quantities to measure and record 

occupational radiation dose. This analysis chose the personal dose equivalent, Hp(d), as a common 

basis of comparison to assess the consistency of the available historical recorded dose at KCP with 

current KCP dosimetry performance. With the known dates of changes in KCP dosimetry systems, 

comparisons of recorded doses before and after these changes provide an ability to assess 

consistency. Similar sources have been used to calibrate and conduct performance testing of 

dosimetry systems (AEC 1955; Unruh et al. 1967; McDonald et al. 1983). 

The d in Hp(d) d identifies the depth in millimeters and represents the point of reference for dose in 

tissue. For weakly penetrating radiation of significance to skin dose, d is 0.07 mm [Hp(0.07)]. For 

penetrating radiation of significance to whole-body dose, d is 10 mm [Hp(10)]. The International 

Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU) has recommended both Hp(0.07) and

Hp(10) for use as the quantities for radiological protection (ICRU 1993). The DOE Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (DOELAP) has used them since the 1980s to accredit personnel dosimetry 

systems in the DOE complex, including KCP (DOE 1986).

6.2 WORKPLACE EXTERNAL RADIATION FIELDS

Section 2.5 describes the primary sources of workplace radiation fields at KCP. These sources 

historically involved industrial RGDs (X-rays and electron accelerators); isotopic beta, gamma-ray, 

and neutron sources; and DU. The isotopic sources were typically part of the manufacturing or quality 

control processes that monitored fabrication of nonnuclear weapons components.

6.2.1 Beta Radiation

Section 2.0 describes handling of radioactive materials from the early 1950s until 1978. Table 2-3 

includes beta radiation fields in KCP workplaces, and Table 2-4 includes RGD-produced electrons. 

The potential for exposure to beta radiation sources is typically from maintenance activities or failures. 

For example, KCP used a 147Pm source to measure the thickness of a film. The failure of the integrity 

of this source did result in some worker exposure and was the subject of an official investigation 

(ASAC 1989). Worker exposure to electrons is typically from operator error or equipment failure.

6.2.2 Photon Radiation

Photon radiation (X- and gamma rays) from KCP work covers a broad energy range. Table 2-3 

includes several photon emitters. KCP typically used these to check or calibrate processes to gauge 

thicknesses, perform instrument calibrations, and so forth. Many sources were beta and photon 

emitters of the types and source strengths typical of mainstream industrial or process-related users. 

These sources are in widespread use, and doses from proper use are comparatively negligible. In 

addition, KCP used a variety of larger photon-emitting radiation sources and X-ray RGDs (Table 2-4). 

These were typically used to radiograph parts or perform operational tasks. There were numerous 

X-ray machines in locations around the Plant.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 46 of 78

KCP had no measurements of the photon energy spectra in its workplaces. The spectra derive from 

the configuration of the X-ray machines, the process, and the extent of shielding. However, 

regardless of the precise spectra, the dosimeters in use throughout operations would have registered 

significant photon radiation. 

6.2.3 Neutron Radiation 

Sources of neutron radiation at KCP involve neutron generators and alpha-neutron interaction

sources (Table 2-4). Neutron-emitting sources were apparently present sometime after 1965 based 

on Schiltz (1966a).

6.3 DOSIMETER TECHNOLOGY

KCP used beta/photon and neutron dosimeters to measure potential radiation exposure of personnel. 

6.3.1 Beta/Photon Dosimeters

Beta and photon dosimeters at KCP included: 

• Pocket ionization chambers (PICs). 

• KCP film dosimeter (Bendix 1964), a two-piece, stainless-steel, film holder with front and rear 

matching rectangular windows. The front and rear faces had a 1-mm-thick cadmium filter in 

the open window. Two different types of personal dosimetry film packets were used, Kodak 

Type 2 for mixed beta and gamma radiation and DuPont Type 558 for X-ray and gamma 

radiation. The DuPont 558 film packet contains two films. Type 508 film has a range of 0.003 

to 30 R, and Type 1290 has a range of 0.68 to 3,000 R. KCP calibration data using uranium 

and 60Co sources are available (Bendix 1964). 

• KCP two-chip thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD-100) from 1973 to 1982.

• Eberline standard three-chip TLD-100 from 1983 through 1990. This dosimeter employed one 

chip under a 10-mg/cm2 filter to measure the shallow or skin dose and one or two chips under 

a 285-mg/cm2 filter to measure the deep or whole-body dose (TMA 1990). KCP stopped using 

this dosimeter because it could not meet DOELAP standards (Allied-Signal 1991).

• The Landauer K1 three-chip TLD-700 starting April 1, 1991, to measure beta, X-ray, and 

gamma radiation exposure.

• Landauer optical stimulated luminescent (OSL) aluminum-oxide dosimeters starting in 2000.

6.3.2 Neutron Dosimeters

KCP used the Landauer Neutrack I dosimeter, a polycarbonate (Lexan) neutron recoil track 

registration device for monitoring fast neutron interactions. The Lexan responds to neutrons by 

recording ionization damage from neutron interactions with carbon and oxygen atoms, which leaves a 

track. It has a uniform energy response from 3 to over 14 MeV with a threshold of 1 MeV. In 2001, 

KCP began using the Neutrak 144 for neutrons, a plastic polymer recoil track dosimeter.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 47 of 78

6.3.3 Dosimetry Techniques and Exchange Frequencies

The dosimeters provided the dose of record; health physics staff used the PICs for administrative 

control until dosimeter results were available. Table 6-1 summarizes personnel dosimetry techniques 

and exchange frequencies.

Table 6-1. Personnel dosimetry systems. 

Beta/photon dosimeters measuring beta/nonpenetrating, X-ray, and gamma

Period Description

Routine exchange 

period

1950–1954 KCP in-house film badge system Weekly

1955 KCP in-house film badge system Biweekly

1956–1964 KCP in-house film badge system Monthly

1965–1972 KCP in-house film badge system Bimonthly

1973–1982 KCP two-chip TLD Bimonthly

1983–1990 Eberline three-chip TLDs Quarterly

1991–2000 Landauer three-chip TLDs Quarterly

2001–2014 Landauer OSL Semiannual

Neutron dosimeters

Period Description

Routine exchange 

period

1961–1967 Controls for Radiation Biweekly

1967–1973 Landauer, film Biweekly

1974–1982 Landauer NTA film Biweeklyb

1983–1990 Landauer Lexan track-etch Monthly

1991–2000 Landauer Neutrak I Poly carb Quarterly

2001–2014 Landauer Neutrak 144 Semiannual

a. NTA = nuclear track emulsion, type A.

b. From review of Landauer badge form data (Landauer 1969–1986). 

KCP participated in DOELAP performance testing using Landauer-provided services beginning in 

October 1992, and most recently passed DOELAP performance testing in May 1995. KCP became 

exempt from DOELAP accreditation in May 1998 based on the low-level potential for worker dose and 

accreditation by NVLAP.

6.4 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

To ensure the dose for each claim is not underestimated, dose reconstructors must consider:

• Potential unmonitored dose for fully unmonitored workers (throughout their employment at 

KCP). 

• Potential missed dose for monitored workers because of missing dosimeter results, actual 

dose that was less than the detection capabilities of the dosimeters, or unrecorded doses in a 

worker’s exposure history.

• Potential adjustments to the recorded dose considering the dosimetry technology, calibration 

methods, and workplace radiation fields, that could have resulted in error in the recorded dose.

6.4.1 Monitored Dose Records

KCP monitored personnel using external dosimetry beginning in 1950. Before 1965, hand-entered

film badge data had several columns labeled “RADS,” “ROENT.,” and “REM.” These represent: 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 48 of 78

• RADS, the open window dose (gamma/X-ray + beta);

• ROENT., the shielded gamma/X-ray dose; and

• REM is the sum of RADS plus ROENT.

NOTE: As the sum of RADS and ROENT, the REM value is not useful for assigning dose. The

value for nonpenetrating dose can be determined by subtracting ROENT from RADs. 

6.4.2 Potential Unmonitored Dose

Based on KCP safety policies and the recorded dose to categories of workers, monitoring occurred for 

most categories of workers. However, for workers without a recorded dose, a reasonable assumption

is that unmonitored dose would be less than the dose to monitored workers. 

Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Dose

Attachment B provides an analysis of recorded doses and calculated coworker doses for unmonitored 

workers. Tables B-1 and B-2 summarize the annual penetrating and nonpenetrating dose for 

unmonitored workers. 

Table B-1 penetrating dose values should adjusted using the guidance in Section 8.0 of ORAUTOTIB-0052, Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers

(ORAUT 2014a). This guidance is applicable for construction trade workers who meet the criteria in 

Section 3.0 of that document. The full coworker penetrating annual dose should multiplied by a factor 

of 1.4, as the missed dose cannot be seperated.. This correction is suitable for best estimate cases.

Neutron Dose

There should not, typically, be a significant neutron exposure of unmonitored workers because of the 

limited sources of neutron radiation. However, for workers who worked with neutron sources or 

neutron-generating equipment who were unmonitored, dose reconstructors should assign

unmonitored neutron dose as follows.

The sources of neutrons at KCP are essentially the same throughout KCP operations, and annual 

doses are likely less than 0.100 rem (the dosimetry data reviewed from the site confirm that doses 

greater than 0.100 rem are very infrequent). Since the predominant neutron energy is well above 0.5 

MeV, a correction factor (which is applied at other sites with lower-energy neutrons) is not needed. 

The dosimetry records from the site consisted of 13,745 entries, of which 2,188 had neutron 

monitoring (35 with recorded positive neutron dose; remaining all had zero recorded neutron dose). 

Three dosimetry records were greater than 0.100 rem (0.200 rem in 1966, 0.180 rem in 1988, 0.140 

rem in 1970). The 95th percentile dose of the dosimetry records with recorded neutron dose (limited 

set of 35 records) results in a value of 0.154 rem. To account for unmonitored neutron dose that may 

have been received, dose reconstructors should assign a bounding dose of 0.154 rem/year neutron 

for unmonitored workers who worked with neutron sources or neutron-generating devices as indicated 

in the CATI or other available DOL/DOE information. Th neutron energy range is 2–20 MeV. This 

approach is an overestimate for unmonitored employees. Dose reconstructors should assign this 

dose using a constant distribution and apply the ICRP 60 (ICRP 1991) correction factor of 1.32 

(ORAUT 2006a). 

Table 6-2. Neutron unmonitored dose. 

Unmonitored neutron 

Dose (rem)

IREP neutron 

energy (MeV)

ICRP 60 

Correction factor IREP distribution

0.154 2–20 MeV 1.32 Constant
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 49 of 78

Summary of unmonitored doses

Dose reconstructors should assign the ambient environmental dose from Section 4.1 to an 

unmonitored worker with minimal potential for radiation exposure from operations, GM coworker dose 

(Attachment B, Tables B-1 and B-2) to an unmonitored worker with minimal likelihood of actual 

workplace exposure, and the 95th-percentile coworker dose (Attachment B, Tables B-1 and B-2) to 

workers with a potential for workplace radiation exposure for each year of employment without a 

recorded dose. Assign unmonitored neutron dose as discussed above to unmonitored workers who 

worked with neutron sources or neutron-generating equipment.

6.4.3 Potential Missed Dose for Monitored Workers

Missed dose occurs when the dose of record: 

• Is zero because the interpreted dose has a negative bias, 

• Dosimeter response was less than the minimum detectable level (MDL), or 

• There is no dose of record for an assigned badge for a period.

There is no evidence of a systematic negative bias, as could occur from background control 

dosimeters in locations of elevated ambient dose. A response that is less than the MDL is typically 

the most important consideration. Dose reconstructors should follow OCAS-IG-001 (NIOSH 2007) to 

calculate the missed dose. The typical method for estimating the potential missed dose is to assign 

missed dose based on the MDL and the number of responses that are less than the MDL (NIOSH 

2007) for the respective dosimetry systems in Table 6-3. 

Dose reconstructors should also use this method for occasional unrecorded doses. For workers who 

worked in an area where positive dose was likely but unrecorded for extended periods, dose 

reconstructors should assign coworker doses (see Attachment B). 

6.4.4 Neutron Dose Adjustments

The neutron radiation from the sources and neutron-generating equipment is within the range of 2-

10 MeV. There is no adjustment necessary for the response characteristics of the neutron

dosimeters. The recorded and unmonitored neutron doses need adjustment to include conversion to 

the ICRP Publication 60 neutron weighting factor for input into IREP (ICRP 1991). Dose 

reconstructors should use the assumed neutron energy and dose fraction in Table 6-4. 

6.4.5 Adjustments to Recorded Deep Dose

The photon deep dose in the worker records from DOE is a reasonable estimate of the actual photon 

dose. The dosimetry technology was capable of detecting and measuring the photon dose based on 

studies of historical performance (AEC 1955; Unruh et al. 1967). The energy of prevalent photons 

based on the radiation sources is readily measurable, so no adjustment of recorded dose should be 

necessary for the response characteristics of the different dosimeters. 

Table 6-3. Potential missed dose for monitored workers. 

Dosimeter Period

MDL shallow 

(mrem)

MDL deep 

(mrem)

MDL Neutron

(mrem)

Film Badge 1950–1972 40b 40b 100b

2-chip TLD 1973–1982 30 30 20

3-chip TLDs 1983–1990 10 10 20

Landauer OSL 2001–2014 10 10 20

a. Earliest estimated exchange for radiation workers is weekly.

b. Estimated MDL typical of film dosimeter capabilities.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 50 of 78

Table 6-4. Neutron dose fractions and associated ICRP 60 correction factors. 

Description

IREP neutron 

energy (MeV)

Default dose 

fraction (%)

ICRP 60 correction 

factor

KCP workplace exposures 2–20 MeV 100 1.32

6.4.6 Radiation Dose Fraction

Table 6-5 summarizes the recommended energy fractions for dose reconstruction. For deep dose, 

50% has photon energy from 30 to 250 keV and 50% has energy greater than 250 keV. For neutron 

dose, 100% has energy from 0.1 to 2 MeV. For shallow dose, the relative contribution from beta and 

photon radiation is unknown. Therefore, the dose reconstructor should calculate the maximum dose 

to the organ of interest assigning 100% to the beta radiation >15 keV category or assigning 100% to 

the photon radiation <30-keV category. This produces results favorable to the claimant.

Table 6-5. Beta, photon, and neutron radiation 

energies and percentages for estimating dose to 

whole-body organs, 1949 to 2004. 

Radiation type

Energy 

selection Percent

Beta >15 keV 100a

Photon 30–250 keV 50b

Photon >250 keV 50c

Neutron 2–20 MeV 100

a. Beta particles from DU, sealed sources, and electron

accelerators have energy higher than 15 keV.

b. Workplace photon energies from scattered X-rays and

DU have energy higher than 30 keV. Primary photon

energies for DU have energy between 30 and 250 keV.

c. Workplace photon energies cover a broad range.

Photons from sealed sources and RGDs are typically of

higher energies but are also heavily shielded.

6.5 UNCERTAINTY

The uncertainty in recorded dose results from various parameters such as dosimeter response, 

calibration, and workplace radiation fields.

Dose reconstructors should incorporate consideration of uncertainty in the dose calculation for 

measured and missed doses as follows:

• The technology for measuring worker dose at KCP was similar to the technology at

commercial and DOE laboratory facilities. The estimated errors in the penetrating and nonpenetrating dose are about ±30% and normally distributed. Assume errors are all positive

(i.e., use only +30%), and multiply the measured dose by a factor of 1.3 (i.e., increase of 30%)

for IREP Parameter 1. Set Parameter 2 to zero.

• For missed dose, assume a lognormal distribution. Calculate the unmonitored dose using

Section 6.4.1 and the missed dose using Section 6.4.2 for Parameter 1. Set Parameter 2

to 1.52.

Few KCP workers received a significant neutron dose. The recommendation for uncertainty for 

photon dose above sufficiently addresses the uncertainty because of the low probability of significant 

neutron dose.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 51 of 78

6.6 ORGAN DOSE

After calculating the photon and neutron doses and their associated standard errors for each year, 

dose reconstructors should calculate doses to the organ(s) of interest using NIOSH (2007).

7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

All information requiring identification was addressed via references integrated into the reference 

section of this document.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 52 of 78

REFERENCES

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1955, “Intercomparison of Film Badge Interpretations,” 

Isotopics, volume 2, number 5, pp. 8–23. [SRDB Ref ID: 3640]

Allied-Signal, 1989–1990, collection of radioactive inventory information, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 128430]

Allied-Signal, 1991, Remedial Action Plan for DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP), 

Revised, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, February 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 14680]

Allied-Signal, 1995, Site Safety Assessment for the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, September. [SRDB Ref ID: 14890]

Allied-Signal, 1998, Uranium Dioxide Powder (U), 4562260-00, Issue H, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, October. [SRDB Ref ID: 14693]

ASAC (Allied-Signal Aerospace Company), 1989, Report of Investigation of Pm 147 Contamination, 

February 10, 1989, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, 

September. [SRDB Ref ID: 6216]

Author unknown, 1951, “Machining of U-238,” September 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 75263]

Author unknown, 1952, “Tonawanda Area Progress Report August, 1952,” memorandum to R. J. 

Smith, Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, August 

22. [SRDB Ref ID: 77595]

Author unknown, 1962, The Fluorophotometric Determination of Uranium in Urine, August 20. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 14691]

Author unknown, 1987, list of radioactive sources, major use, and major energies, August 20. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 14692]

Author unknown, 2014, spreadsheet of job classifications, departments, dates and associated work 

activities. [SRDB Ref ID: 137737]

BAC (Bendix Aviation Corporation), 1952, “Roster of Dept. 49B,” memorandum, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, January 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 128336]

BAC (Bendix Aviation Corporation), 1958, Health and Safety Measures - Department 22, 34 and I1L 

(Ra Lab) Operations, Procedure No. S-306, Revised, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, November 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 14690]

Baldwin, R. R., 1966, Floor Monitoring Survey Results, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, January 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 14681]

Bendix Corporation, 1958–2009, collection of documents about magnesium-thorium processing and 

worker safety, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 137074, p. 57]

Bendix Corporation, 1960–1964, collection of Radiation Protection Surveys of Department 213, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 14698]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 53 of 78

Bendix Corporation, 1962, Purchase Order ICO-020757 to Union Carbide and Nuclear Corporation for 

10,000 pounds of uranium-dioxide powder, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 14683]

Bendix Corporation, 1962–1976, collection of Radiation Protection Surveys, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 128476]

Bendix Corporation, 1963, “Magnesium-Thorium (3.5% Nax.) Alloy Suggested Care and Handling 

Methods,” Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, March 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 137074, p. 57] 

Bendix Corporation, 1964, Film Dosimetry Manual, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 14684]

Bendix Corporation, 1964–1965, collection of survey information on the Sciaky electron beam welder, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 14687]

Bendix Corporation, 1965, “Hi-Lo Switch Plates, CF 1831 Cable Assembly,” memorandum to 

Distribution, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, November 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 137063]

Bendix Corporation, 1974, Radioactive Waste Management Site Plan, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 134675, p. 313] 

Bendix Corporation, 1976, “Radiation Protection Survey,” Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, 

October 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 128476, p. 2] 

Bendix Corporation, ca. 1981, Survey of Average Patient Radiation Exposure for Chest Diagnostic 

Procedures, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, January 29. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 34]

Bendix Corporation, 1984, “Box #2, Radioactive Waste Unclassified, Contents,” radioactive material 

packing information, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, June 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 

138164, p. 8]

Bendix Corporation, undated, Uranium in Urine and Lead List, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 14694]

Brendlinger, R. L., 1974, “MOCA Physicals,” letter to J. Morris, Mid-Con Cable, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 30. [SRDB Ref ID: 128146]

Cayou, S., 1958, letter to Distribution regarding fabrication of magnesium thorium, Bendix 

Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, October 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 128181, p. 

22]

Ceek, H. L., 1950, “Physical Examinations (Area 3A),” memorandum to J. S. Stowers, Bendix 

Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, July 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 128319]

Courtright, E. L., 1967a, “T446,” memorandum to R. P. Baker and E. E. Hipsher, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 5 and 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 138157]

Courtright, E. L., 1967b, “T446,” memorandum to E. E. Hipsher and R. P. Baker, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 11 and 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 138159]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 54 of 78

Darnell, P., P. McCloskey, and M. Sharfi, 2015, “KCP dosimetry database validation and verification 

(V&V),” National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 159899] 

DeCloud, M. F., 1981a, “Survey to Determine Average Patient Radiation Exposure from Medical XRay Equipment,” memorandum to File, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, January 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 12] 

DeCloud, M. F., 1982, “Survey to Determine Average Patient Radiation Exposure from Medical X-Ray 

Equipment,” memorandum to File, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, February 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 7]

DeCloud, M. F., 1983, “Survey to Determine Average Patient Radiation Exposure from Medical X-Ray 

Equipment,” memorandum to Distribution, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, March 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 2]

DeCloud, M. F., 1984, Radiation Protection Survey, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, October 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 39]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986, Department of Energy Standard for the Performance 

Testing of Personnel Dosimetry Systems, DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program for 

Personnel Dosimetry Systems, DOE/EH-0027, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, 

Washington, D.C., December. [SRDB Ref ID: 12294]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear 

Weapons Production Processes to Their Environmental Consequences, DOE/EM-0319, Office 

of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., January. [SRDB Ref ID: 11930]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2013, Final Environmental Assessment for the Transfer of the 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, DOE/EA-1947, Department of Energy 

(DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Washington, D.C., May. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 127459]

Evans, M. R, 1985, “W80-0JTA Telemetry Assembly - Swipe Testing,” letter to P. D. Startz (Mason 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company), Bendix Aerospace, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Kansas, 

October 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 123862, p. 30]

Evans, M. R, 1988a, “Release of W80-0 Telemetry Assemblies, WES 1007 and EAS 1007, for 

Rework and Recertification,” memorandum to J. L. Bowers, Bendix Allied Signal, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Kansas, March 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 123862, p. 97]

Evans, M. R, 1988b, “Release of W80-O Telemetry Assemblies, WES 1006 and EAS 1006, (Both 

Date Coded L84), for Rework and Recertification,” memorandum to J. L. Bowers, Bendix Allied 

Signal, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Kansas, February 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 123862, p. 143]

Fitzgerald, J., 2015, “SC&A’s Evaluation of NIOSH’s January 2015 Response to KCP SEC Matrix 

Issues 7, 15, 17, 18, and 20,” memorandum to KCP Work Group, SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, 

April 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 159896] 

Foster, R. T., ca. 1959, Magnesium-Thorium (3.5% Max.) Alloy Recommended Care and Handling 

Methods, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 

14685, p. 14]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 55 of 78

Foster, R. T., 1960, “Revised Copy of Organizational Policies Procedure, S-306, Health and Safety 

Measures, Depts., 22, 34, 216-22 & 8650L,” memorandum to J. Graves, Bendix Corporation, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, November 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 14685]

Foster, R. T., 1961, “Recommendations for Handling Magnesium-Thorium Alloy at BEC,” 

memorandum to All Concerned, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, 

August 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 108264, p. 44] 

Foster, R. T., 1962, “Proposed Procedure,” memorandum to F. T. Tate, Bendix Corporation, Kansas 

City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 14686]

Foster, R. T., 1970, “Development Support Project Using Magnesium-Thorium Alloy,” memorandum 

to V. J. Smeltzer, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, August 28. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 128433, p. 26] 

Harris, W. B. and I. Kingsley, 1958, The Industrial Hygiene of Uranium Fabrication, HASL-39, U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, June 6. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 15785]

Harrison, R. J., J. J. Meunier, and J. O. Schiltz, 1964, “Completed radiation protection survey form for 

Main Medical X-ray installation,” internal memorandum, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, January 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 14688.

Helsel, D. R., 2012, Statistical Methods for Censored Environmental Data Using Minitab and R, John 

Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, February. [SRDB Ref ID: 150353]

HFMT (Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies), 2004, attachment from letter to Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 14695]

HFMT (Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies), 2012, “KCP Rad Dosimetry Database 

XP1,” Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 111136]

HFMT (Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies), 2016, “Transformation,” Kansas City 

National Security Campus, Kansas City, Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 159898] 

Hobert, R. H., 1953, “Fernald Office History,” letter to J. C. Woodhouse, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & 

Company, Wilmington, Delaware, June 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 76834]

Hoecker, F. E., 1953, untitled letter to E. G. Applegate (Bendix Aviation Corporation), Lawrence, 

Kansas, September 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 14689]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1982, Protection of the Patient in 

Diagnostic Radiology, Publication 34, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. [SRDB Ref ID: 

32466]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1991, 1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England. [SRDB Ref ID: 11517]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994a, Human Respiratory Tract Model

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 56 of 78

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994b, Dose Coefficients for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. [SRDB Ref ID: 

22731]

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1988, Determination of 

Dose Equivalents from External Radiation Sources—Part 2, Report 43, Bethesda, Maryland, 

December 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 8774]

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1993, Quantities and Units 

in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Report 51, Bethesda, Maryland, September 1. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 13521]

Jacobson, G.A., 1988, untitled letter to J. G. Ochoa (Allied/Bendix), U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Foot and Drug Administration, Kansas City, Missouri, October 27. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 128151, p. 3].

Kircher, C. F., 1990, “Final Unusual Occurrence Report KCP-90-02,” memorandum to P. T. Hoopes, 

Allied-Signal Aerospace Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, June 6. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 128248, p. 7]

Kolbay, M. L., 2014, “Response to Review Request (20140007897-DH),” memorandum to G.S. Lewis, 

U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C., September 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 135987]

Krueger, R. L., and J. J. Meunier, 1987, “Personal Concern Regarding Possible Exposure to 

Radioactive Material, Erbium Tritide Particulate, Inside Contaminated MC3847 Data Analyzer 

Case,” investigation report, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, 

October 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 108267, p. 2]

Laing, E. C., 1952, “April Triple Dip Canning Program,” memorandum to L. R. Kelman, Argonne 

National Laboratory-East, Argonne, Illinois, April 5.

Lalos, G., editor, 1989, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 1905]

Landauer (R. S. Landauer and Company), 1969–1986, collection of dosimeter badge forms. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 128265]

Lovell, P. K., 1966, “Report on Trip to U. S. Radium Corp., Bloomsburg, Pa. Feb. 10, 1966,” 

memorandum to G. L. Rhodes, Sandia Corporation, Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, 

California. [SRDB Ref ID: 128439, p. 4]

Lund, A., 2004, “Confirmed Intakes,” e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Honeywell 

Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 10. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 14705]

Mahaffey, J. W., 1952, History of Production Machining of Uranium, FMPC-28, National Lead 

Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 44238]

Malone, F. W., 1952a, “Weekly Progress Report February 14, 1952,” memorandum to R. J. Smith, 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, February 18. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 73509]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 57 of 78

Malone, F. W., 1952b, “Weekly Progress Report February 28, 1952,” memorandum to R. J. Smith, 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, March 3. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 73512]

McDonald, J. C., P. L. Roberson, J. J. Fix, G. W. R. Endres, R. T. Hadley, L. L. Nichols, K. L. 

Holbrook, R. B. Schwartz, and R. C. Yoder, 1983, Response Characteristics of Selected 

Personnel Neutron Dosimeters, PNL-3982, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, 

Washington. [SRDB Ref ID: 13345]

Meunier, J. J., 1963, “MC1465, Industrial Hygiene Handling Procedure,” memorandum to H. Sego (D17), Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, February 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 

137154, p. 16]

Meunier, J. J., 1966, “Inspection of Hi-Lo Switch Plates in Department 212,” memorandum to C. F. 

Poynter, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, May 27. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 128439, p. 

Meunier, J. J., 1977, “Survey To Determine Average Patient Radiation Exposure from Medical X-Ray 

Equipment,” memorandum to File, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri. [SRDB Ref ID: 128174, p. 2].

Meunier, J. J., and DeCloud, M. F., 1980, “Survey to Determine Average Patient Radiation Exposure 

from Medical X-Ray Equipment,” memorandum to File, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, May 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 128171, p. 12]

Meunier, J. J., A. E. Stewart, and J. C. Schiltz, 1962, Radiation Protection Survey, Bendix 

Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, December 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 128476, 

p. 66].

Meunier, J. J., 1970, “Evaluation of Roof Exhaust Stack Air Volume Rates from Departments 20D and 

27C (Old 34C),” memorandum to J. O. Schiltz, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, April 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 128391, p. 3].

Nasca, B. M., 2004a, “Questions for KCP Technical Basis Document,” attachment from e-mail to Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, August 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 14711]

Nasca, B. M., 2004b, untitled e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Honeywell Federal 

Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, April 2. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 14708]

Nasca, B. M., 2004c, “air sampling data,” electronic mail to J. Fix (U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory), Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, September 8, [SRDB Ref ID: 14716]. 

Nasca, B. M., 2004d, “External Doses and Total Uranium Intakes Spreadsheet,” spreadsheet, 

Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, 

March 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 14707]

Nasca, B. M., 2005a, “Subject: Re; Email dated 2/8/05, Uranium Bioassay,” letter to Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, February 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 15928]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 58 of 78

Nasca, B. M., 2005b, “Subject: Re: Uranium at KCP,” e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, February 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 24424]

Nasca, B. M., 2005c, “Subject: Re: Uranium Bioassays,” e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, February 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 15926]

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1955, X-Ray Protection, Handbook 60, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 73173]

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1996, Screening Models for 

Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water, and Ground, Report 123, 

Bethesda, Maryland. [SRDB Ref ID: 79896]

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1997, Medical X-Ray Electron 

Beam and Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up to 50 MeV (Equipment Design, 

Performance and Use), Report 102, Bethesda, Maryland.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2004, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, 

OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 

13. 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2007, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 3, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 21.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010, Radiation Exposures Covered 

for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act, DCAS-IG-003, Rev. 1, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 5.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2011, Site Profiles for Atomic 

Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals, Battelle-TBD-6000, Rev. 1, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 17.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2014, SEC Petition Evaluation Report, 

Petition SEC-00210, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

January 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 159903] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004, Technical Information Bulletin – 

Assignment of Environmental Internal Doses for Employees Not Exposed to Airborne 

Radionuclides in the Workplace, ORAUT-OTIB-0014, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 22.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006a, Technical Basis for Conversion from 

NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality Factors to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors 

for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges, ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Rev 00, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, June 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006b, Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose 

Reconstruction for DOE Sites, ORAUT-PROC-0060, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 28.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 59 of 78

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010, Basis for Development of an Exposure 

Matrix for the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company St. Louis Downtown Site and the St. Louis 

Airport Site, St. Louis, Missouri, ORAUT-TKBS-0005, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

November 22.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011a, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational 

Medical X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 04 PC-1, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. June 

20.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011b, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for 

External Dose Assignment, ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

November 14.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012a, Dose Reconstruction Method for Chronic 

Lymphocytic Leukemia, ORAUT-OTIB-0082, Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

December 20.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012b, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – 

Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

August 24.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012c, Dose Reconstruction During Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities, ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2013a, “Thorium Oxide Powder Question,” 

documented communication with former KCP employees, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 

27. [SRDB Ref ID: 129196]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2013b, “KCP Tritide Investigation,” documented 

communication with former KCP employees, September 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 127657]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014a, Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers, ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Rev 02, Oake Ridge, 

Tennessee, July 24.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014b, Guiding Reconstruction of Intakes of 

Thorium Resulting from Nuclear Weapons Programs, ORAUT-OTIB-0076, Rev. 00, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, July 10.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2015a, Hanford Site – Occupational Internal 

Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, Rev. 06, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 16.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2015b, External Dose Coworker Methodology, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0071, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Tennessee, July 2.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016a, Guidance on Assigning Occupational 

X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. March 18.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016b, KCP Fit Plots, July. [SRDB Ref ID: 

162562] 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 60 of 78

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016c, KCP Imputation Plots, July. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 162572] 

Patterson, J., 1984, untitled letter to J. Meunier (Bendix Corporation), U.S. Department of Health & 

Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, June 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 

128167, p. 2] 

Pettie, C.B., 1958, “Survey of Medical X-Ray Facilities.” [SRDB Ref ID: 128476, p. 93]

Reis, V. H., 1998, Statement of Dr. Victor H. Reis, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, 

Department of Energy, Before the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Committee on 

National Security, U.S. House of Representatives, 1998, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C., March 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 14696]

Rockwell (Rockwell International), 1985, Waste Trenches and Machining Area Decontamination Final 

Report, RI/RD85-265-1, Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park, California, October 30. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 123905]

Rockwell (Rockwell International), 1987, Heavy Machining Inspection Area Contamination Reports, 

RI/RD87-138, Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park, California, March 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 

123906, p. 106] 

Schiltz, J. O., 1959, “T-329–Radiological Urinalysis Kit,” memorandum to O. E. Lanborn, Bendix 

Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, September 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 

137065]

Schiltz, J. O., 1961, Radiation Protection Survey, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, October 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 128476, p. 86].

Schiltz, J. O., 1962, “Experience with Radioactive Sources at Bendix Corporation Prior to 1954 (T219 

Testing),” memorandum to R. T. Foster, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, August 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 128310, p. 106]

Schiltz, J. O., 1963, untitled memorandum, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, January 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 128349, p. 2]

Schiltz, J. O., 1964, Radioactive Sources, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, 

Missouri, May 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 14697]

Schiltz, J. O., 1966a, Special Physical Examination Program, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, May 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 14699]

Schiltz, J. O., 1966b, Radiation Detection Equipment, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 

City, Missouri, April. [SRDB Ref ID: 14700]

Sharpe, W. E., 1977, “Health and Environmental Protection Survey--Bendix Kansas City Plant--

May 17-20, 1977,” internal memorandum to R. Bulcock, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, July 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 128174, p. 2].

Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, 2015, Safety Data Sheet, Tung Oil, Version 5.1, January 26. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 140801]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 61 of 78

Smock, J. W., 2014, “Response to Review Request (20140007645-HS),” memorandum to G. S. 

Lewis, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C., May 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 137786]

Staggs, R. P., and J. O. Schiltz, 1961, Radiation Protection Survey, Bendix Corporation, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, February 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 128476, p. 75].

Stowers, J. C., 1951a, Safety Regulations for Handling and Storing of Normal Uranium, U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission Project Royal, August 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 128346]

Stowers, J. C., 1951b, “Procedures Pertaining to Work Performed in Area X,” memorandum to W. B. 

Paine (Bendix Aviation Corporation), Atomic Energy Commission, Kansas City Field Office, 

Kansas City, Missouri, June 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 128333]

Stowers, J. C., 1951c, “Machining of U-238,” memorandum to W. B. Paine, Atomic Energy 

Commission, Kansas City Field Office, Kansas City, Missouri, April 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 

128332, p. 3]

Thiel, G. E., 1955, “Exit Physical Examinations,” memorandum to M. Keese, Atomic Energy 

Commission, Kansas City Field Office, Kansas City, Missouri, March 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 

129320]

Tiehen, G.L., 1987, “D/823 Radioactive Materials Usage,” memorandum to D. Stoltz, Allied Bendix 

Aerospace, Bendix Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, August 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 

128420]

TMA (Thermo Analytical), 1990, Radiation Dosimetry: TLD Service for Personnel & Environmental 

Monitoring, TMA Eberline, Albuquerque, New Mexico. [SRDB Ref ID: 14889]

Todd, M., 2004a, “KCP Occupationally Related Routine Chest X-Rays,” e-mail to Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City 

Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, April 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 14701]

Todd, M., 2004b, “KCP Medical X-Rays,” attachment from e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, June 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 14702]

Todd, M., 2004c, “Questions for KCP Technical Basis Document,” e-mail to Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, Missouri, August 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 14706]

Unruh, C. M., H. V. Larson, T. M. Beetle, and A. R. Keene, 1967, The Establishment and Utilization of 

Film Dosimeter Performance Criteria, BNWL-542, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. [SRDB Ref ID: 14914]

Watson, J. E. Jr., J. L. Wood, W. G. Tankersley, and C. M. West, 1994, “Estimation of Radiation Dose 

for Workers Without Monitoring Data for Retrospective Epidemiologic Studies,” Health 

Physics, volume 67, number 4, pp. 402–405. [SRDB Ref ID: 8601]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 62 of 78

GLOSSARY

beta dose

Designation (i.e., beta) on some records for external dose from beta and less-energetic X-ray 

and gamma radiation, often for shallow dose or dose to the lens of the eye.

beta radiation

Charged particle emitted from some radioactive elements with a mass equal to 1/1,837 that of 

a proton. A negatively charged beta particle is identical to an electron. A positively charged 

beta particle is a positron.

curie (Ci)

Traditional unit of radioactivity equal to 37 billion (3.7 × 1010) becquerels, which is 

approximately equal to the activity of 1 gram of pure 226Ra.

deep dose equivalent [Hp(10)] 

Dose equivalent in units of rem or sievert for a 1-centimeter depth in tissue (1,000 milligrams 

per square centimeter). See dose. 

density times thickness (DXT) device

Radiation-generating gauge for density or thickness measurements. Given a known value for 

either density or thickness, DXT devices measure the other value with about 0.5% accuracy

using X-ray generators or radionuclide sources such as 137Cs.

depleted uranium (DU)

Uranium with a percentage of 235U lower than the 0.7% found in natural uranium.

dose equivalent (H) 

In units of rem or sievert, product of absorbed dose in tissue multiplied by a weighting factor 

and sometimes by other modifying factors to account for the potential for a biological effect 

from the absorbed dose. See dose. 

dose of record

(1) Dose records that the U.S. Department of Energy provided to the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health as part of each worker’s file. (2) Individual recorded dose 

such as that on a dosimetry card or in a dosimetry database.

dosimeter

Device that measures the quantity of received radiation, usually a holder with radiationabsorbing filters and radiation-sensitive inserts packaged to provide a record of absorbed dose 

received by an individual. See film dosimeter, neutron film dosimeter, pocket ionization 

chamber, and thermoluminescent dosimeter. 

dosimetry

Measurement and calculation of internal and external radiation doses. 

dosimetry system

System for assessment of received radiation dose. This includes the fabrication, assignment, 

and processing of external dosimeters, and/or the collection and analysis of bioassay samples, 

and the interpretation and documentation of the results.

exchange period (frequency)

Period (weekly, biweekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) for routine exchange of dosimeters.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 63 of 78

exposure

(1) In general, the act of being exposed to ionizing radiation; see acute exposure and chronic 

exposure. (2) Measure of the ionization produced by X- and gamma-ray photons in air in units 

of roentgens.

extremities

The arms from and including the elbow through the fingertips and the the legs from and 

including the knee and patella through the toes.

field calibration

Dosimeter calibration based on radiation types, intensities, and energies in the work 

environment.

film

(1) In the context of external dosimetry, radiation-sensitive photographic film in a light-tight 

wrapping. See film dosimeter. (2) X-ray film.

film density

See optical density. 

film dosimeter

Package of film for measurement of ionizing radiation exposure for personnel monitoring 

purposes. A film dosimeter can contain two or three films of different sensitivities, and it can 

contain one or more filters that shield parts of the film from certain types of radiation. When 

developed, the film has an image caused by radiation measurable with an optical 

densitometer. Also called film badge.

gamma radiation

Electromagnetic radiation (photons) of short wavelength and high energy (10 kiloelectron-volts 

to 9 megaelectron-volts) that originates in atomic nuclei and accompanies many nuclear 

reactions (e.g., fission, radioactive decay, and neutron capture). Gamma photons are identical 

to X-ray photons of high energy; the difference is that X-rays do not originate in the nucleus.

gray

International System unit of absorbed radiation dose, which is the amount of energy from any 

type of ionizing radiation deposited in any medium; 1 Gy equals 1 joule per kilogram or 

100 rads.

ionizing radiation

Radiation of high enough energy to remove an electron from a struck atom and leave behind a 

positively charged ion. High enough doses of ionizing radiation can cause cellular damage. 

Ionizing particles include alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays, neutrons, 

high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, photoelectrons, Compton electrons, 

positron/negatron pairs from photon radiation, and scattered nuclei from fast neutrons.

minimum detectable activity or amount (MDA)

Smallest amount (activity or mass) of an analyte in a sample that can be detected with a 

probability β of nondetection (Type II error) while accepting a probability α of erroneously 

deciding that a positive (nonzero) quantity of analyte is present in an appropriate blank sample 

(Type I error).

minimum detectable level (MDL)

See minimum detectable activity or amount. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 64 of 78

neutron (n)

Basic nucleic particle that is electrically neutral with mass slightly greater than that of a proton. 

There are neutrons in the nuclei of every atom heavier than normal hydrogen.

neutron film dosimeter

Film dosimeter with a nuclear track emulsion, type A, film packet.

nuclear emulsion

Thick photographic coating in which the tracks of various fundamental particles show as black 

traces after development. The number of tracks in a given area is a measure of the dose from 

that radiation. See nuclear track emulsion, type A. 

nuclear track emulsion, type A (NTA)

Film made by the Eastman Kodak Company that is sensitive to fast neutrons. The developed 

image has tracks caused by neutrons that become visible under oil immersion with about 

1,000-power magnification. The number of tracks in a given area is a measure of the dose 

from that radiation.

open window

Area of a film dosimeter that has little to no radiation shielding (e.g., only a holder and visible 

light protection). The open window measures nonpenetrating as well as penetrating dose, 

which minimizes the potential for beta radiation to contribute to the interpreted penetrating 

dose. See film dosimeter. 

optical density

Measure of the degree of opacity of photographic or radiographic film defined as OD = 

log10 (I0/I), the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of the reference light intensity I0 (without film) to 

the transmitted light intensity (through the film) Also called film density and density reading.

personal dose equivalent, Hp(d)

Dose equivalent in units of rem or sievert in soft tissue below a specified point on the body at 

an appropriate depth d. The depths selected for personal dosimetry are 0.07 millimeters 

(7 milligrams per square centimeter) and 10 millimeters (1,000 milligrams per square 

centimeter), respectively, for the skin (shallow) and whole-body (deep) doses. These are 

noted as Hp(0.07) and Hp(10), respectively. In 1993 the International Commission on 

Radiological Measurement and Units recommended Hp(d) as the dose quantity for radiological 

protection.

photon

Quantum of electromagnetic energy generally regarded as a discrete particle having zero rest 

mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. The entire range of electromagnetic 

radiation that extends in frequency from 1023 cycles per second (hertz) to 0 hertz.

photon X-ray

Electromagnetic radiation of energies between 10 keV and 100 keV whose source can be an 

X-ray machine or radioisotope.

radiation

Subatomic particles and electromagnetic rays (photons) with kinetic energy that interact with 

matter through various mechanisms that involve energy transfer. See ionizing radiation. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 65 of 78

radioactivity

Property possessed by some elements (e.g., uranium) or isotopes (e.g., 14C) of spontaneously 

emitting energetic particles (electrons or alpha particles) by the disintegration of their atomic 

nuclei. 

radiograph

Static images produced on radiographic film by gamma rays or X-rays after passing through 

matter. In the context of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000, radiographs are X-ray images of the various parts of the body used to screen for 

disease. See radiology. 

rem

Traditional unit of radiation dose equivalent that indicates the biological damage caused by 

radiation equivalent to that caused by 1 rad of high-penetration X-rays multiplied by a quality 

factor. The sievert is the International System unit; 1 rem equals 0.01 sievert. The word 

derives from roentgen equivalent in man; rem is also the plural.

roentgen (R)

Unit of photon (gamma or X-ray) exposure for which the resultant ionization liberates a positive 

or negative charge equal to 2.58 × 10-4 coulombs per kilogram (or 1 electrostatic unit of 

electricity per cubic centimeter) of dry air at 0 degrees Celsius and standard atmospheric 

pressure. An exposure of 1 R is approximately equivalent to an absorbed dose of 1 rad in soft 

tissue for higher energy photons (generally greater than 100 kiloelectron-volts).

shallow dose equivalent [Hp(0.07)] 

Dose equivalent in units of rem or sievert at a depth of 0.07 millimeters (7 milligrams per 

square centimeter) in tissue equal to the sum of the penetrating and nonpenetrating doses.

shielding

Material or obstruction that absorbs ionizing radiation and tends to protect personnel or 

materials from its effects.

skin dose

See shallow dose equivalent. 

thermoluminescence

Property that causes a material to emit light as a result of heat.

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)

Device for measuring radiation dose that consists of a holder containing solid chips of material 

that, when heated, release the stored energy as light. The measurement of this light provides 

a measurement of absorbed dose.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

Federal agency created in 1946 to assume the responsibilities of the Manhattan Engineer 

District (nuclear weapons) and to manage the development, use, and control of nuclear energy 

for military and civilian applications. The U.S. Energy Research and Development 

Administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumed separate duties from 

the AEC in 1974. The U.S. Department of Energy succeeded the U.S. Energy Research and 

Development Administration in 1979.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 66 of 78

whole-body dose

Dose to the entire body excluding the contents of the gastrointestinal tract, urinary bladder, 

and gall bladder and commonly defined as the absorbed dose at a tissue depth of 

10 millimeters (1,000 milligrams per square centimeter). Also called penetrating dose. 

See dose. 

X-ray

(1) See X-ray radiation. (2) See radiograph. 

X-ray radiation

Electromagnetic radiation (photons) produced by bombardment of atoms by accelerated 

particles. X-rays are produced by various mechanisms including bremsstrahlung and electron 

shell transitions within atoms (characteristic X-rays). Once formed, there is no difference 

between X-rays and gamma rays, but gamma photons originate inside the nucleus of an atom.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 67 of 78

ATTACHMENT A 

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

A.1 External Radiation.................................................................................................................. 68

A.2 Internal Radiation................................................................................................................... 68

A.2.1 Receptor on the Roof ................................................................................................. 70

A.2.2 Receptor on the Ground Downwind from the Source on the Roof............................... 71

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 IREP input for ambient external dose calculation ................................................................... 68

A-2 Laboratories where workers handled DU ............................................................................... 68

A-3 Personnel dosimeter control dosimeter data .......................................................................... 69

A-4 GM measured air concentration for IMBA input for ambient internal dose calculation ............ 70
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 68 of 78

ATTACHMENT A

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

(continued)

This attachment examines potential ambient environmental exposures, both external and internal, for 

unmonitored workers. The analysis used measured workplace data as the basis. 

A.1 EXTERNAL RADIATION

There are no known measurements of environmental external dose from KCP operations. Site 

documents indicate little if any radiological ambient environmental impact. However, in spite of no 

evidence, this analysis recommends that dose reconstructors assign an external dose of 25 mrem/yr

to an unmonitored, nonradiological worker for each year of employment at KCP. This assignment is 

favorable to claimants. Table A-1 lists the IREP input for calculation of organ dose. This potential 

external radiation dose is based on the calculated 95% variability amongst background control 

personnel dosimeters in Table A-3 (i.e., 2-sigma = 25 mrem). 

Table A-1. IREP input for ambient external dose calculation. 

Exposure 

rate Radiation type

Dose 

distribution type Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Parameter 3

Chronic Photons E=30–250keV Constant 0.025 0.000 0.000

A.2 INTERNAL RADIATION

The primary and apparently only radionuclide at KCP in large quantities was DU from 1959 through 

1971. The recommended approach to assign an ambient environmental internal dose to unmonitored 

nonradiological workers based on analysis of dispersion to the outside of measured laboratory 

uranium concentrations. There were no windows in the building, so all potential releases were from 

stacks. If the stacks had filtration and what kind is unknown. As seen in Table A-2, KCP had two 

primary laboratories where workers handled DU, with the following characteristics: 

Table A-2. Laboratories where workers handled DU.

Department

Stack velocity 

(ft3/min)

Work room 

area (ft2)

Machining area (20D) 2,400 8,800

Mixing/curing (27C) 1,987 7,000

Source: Meunier (1970). 

Based on this information, the analysis estimated the dispersion factor between outside and inside air 

concentrations as 0.01 (Section A.2.1) based on National Council on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements (NCRP) Report 123, Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, 

Surface Water, and Ground (NCRP 1996). To estimate potential daily intake, the analysis multiplied

an annual intake fraction of 0.01 by the GM annual measured laboratory air concentrations in Table 5-

4 (i.e., multiply annual concentrations in Table 5-4 by 6.58 × 1010 to intake in picocuries per day). For 

the period after 1970, there are no workplace air sampling data available for analysis. Because there 

was potential for unknown small releases or residual contamination, such as the incident with 147Pm in 

1989, dose reconstructors should use the GM concentration from Table 5-4 with the factor of 0.01 for 

each year of employment after 1970 until 1990. The 1990 end of this period is when the multi-agency 

response findings to the 147Pm incident found no significant environmental releases. Table A-4 shows 

the resulting input for IMBA.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 69 of 78

ATTACHMENT A

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

(continued)

Table A-3. Personnel dosimeter control dosimeter data.

a

Account 

series

Photon 

deep dose 

equivalent 

(mrem)

Photon 

shallow dose 

equivalent 

(mrem) Days mrem/d mrem/hr

DUO 37 37 206 0.179612 0.007

DUO 34 34 210 0.163726 0.007

DUO 41 42 216 0.188441 0.008

DUO 40 39 223 0.179878 0.007

ENG 35 34 206 0.169734 0.007

ENG 35 37 210 0.16878 0.007

ENG 36 38 216 0.167176 0.007

ENG 39 38 223 0.174036 0.007

FMT 30 29 206 0.145881 0.006

FMT 29 28 210 0.135928 0.006

FMT 33 33 216 0.152259 0.006

FMT 33 32 223 0.148526 0.006

GEN 30 30 206 0.146249 0.006

GEN 32 33 210 0.151753 0.006

GEN 35 36 216 0.161556 0.007

GEN 34 34 223 0.152212 0.006

MET 53 53 206 0.259466 0.011

MET 52 53 210 0.247593 0.010

MET 59 62 216 0.271173 0.011

MET 58 57 223 0.260149 0.011

NDE 45 45 206 0.220097 0.009

NDE 48 50 210 0.226797 0.009

NDE 49 52 216 0.228593 0.010

NDE 52 52 223 0.235022 0.010

NGA 41 41 206 0.200631 0.008

NGA 37 36 210 0.174383 0.007

NGA 42 44 216 0.196286 0.008

NGA 42 41 223 0.189626 0.008

RAD 29 29 206 0.14282 0.006

RAD 32 32 210 0.153984 0.006

RAD 34 34 216 0.155472 0.006

RAD 35 35 223 0.156726 0.007

ULT 41 40 206 0.200863 0.008

ULT 41 40 210 0.194969 0.008

ULT 45 46 216 0.208939 0.009

ULT 47 46 223 0.209522 0.009

WMT 39 39 206 0.188718 0.008

WMT 35 35 210 0.168635 0.007

WMT 44 47 216 0.201806 0.008

WMT 44 44 223 0.197593 0.008

XRY 40 39 206 0.194161 0.008

XRY 43 43 210 0.203215 0.008

XRY 49 51 216 0.224537 0.009

XRY 48 47 223 0.213842 0.009

Average N/A N/A N/A 0.1888947 N/A

Standard deviation N/A N/A N/A 0.0345245 N/A
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 70 of 78

ATTACHMENT A

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

(continued)

Account 

series

Photon 

deep dose 

equivalent 

(mrem)

Photon 

shallow dose 

equivalent 

(mrem) Days mrem/d mrem/hr

Annual, 1-sigma N/A N/A N/A 12.60143 mrem

Annual, 2-sigma N/A N/A N/A 25.20286 mrem

a. N/A = not applicable.

Table A-4. GM measured air concentration 

for IMBA input for ambient internal dose 

calculation. 

Year μCi/cm3 pCi/d GSD

1958 4.01E-13 2.64E-02 3.0

1959 2.89E-13 1.90E-02 3.0

1960 3.41E-13 2.24E-02 3.0

1961 1.97E-13 1.30E-02 3.0

1962 2.50E-13 1.65E-02 3.0

1963 2.47E-13 1.63E-02 3.0

1964 3.91E-13 2.57E-02 3.0

1965 1.05E-13 6.91E-03 3.0

1966 2.00E-13 1.32E-02 3.0

1967 5.70E-13 3.75E-02 3.0

1968 2.31E-13 1.52E-02 3.0

1969 3.88E-12 2.55E-01 3.0

1970 4.02E-14 2.65E-03 3.0

1971–1989 5.49E-13 3.62E-02 3.0

Air Concentrations Outside the Plant from Activities Inside the Plant

The analysis calculated the possible air concentration of DU outside the KCP facility due to activities 

inside the building based on the measured inside air concentration and engineering details of the 

primary laboratories.

For dilution factors, the analysis assumed the measured room air concentration was 1 Bq/m3 (a unit 

air concentration), then used he results of the calculated outside air concentration to calculate the 

potential occupational dose for selected receptor locations. 

A.2.1 Receptor on the Roof

Using the Machining Area (20D) as an example, the quantity of DU exhausted from the room is: 

1.133 Bq/s.

The analysis used Equation A-1 (Equation 2.8 from NCRP 1996) to calculate the air concentration

downwind of the release point but on the same surface as the release point (i.e., both the source and 

receptor are on the roof).

(A-1) 0 2 u Xh

Q C B=

where 

B0 = 30
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 71 of 78

ATTACHMENT A

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

(continued)

Q = the release rate (1.133 Bq/s)

uh = mean wind speed (4.74 m/s)

x = downwind distance (m)

the distance where C = 0.01 is from Equation A-21, rewritten to solve for x: 

(A-2) 0

h

B Q

x

Cu =

With substitution of the numerical values above, C = 0.01 when x exceeds 26.7 m (87.9 ft) and the 

wind always blows towards the recipient.

A.2.2 Receptor on the Ground Downwind from the Source on the Roof

For this case the calculations use Equation A-3 (Equation 2.6 from NCRP 1996): 

(A-3) fQP C

u =

where 

f = fraction of time the wind blows from the source to the receptor

P = dilution factor from Figure 2.2 of NCRP (1996)

The greatest air concentrations result when the height of the building is zero, in which case the value 

of P is 3.6 × 10-2. Substituting the above-given values, C is 8.6 × 10-3 Bq/m3

. The dilution factor of 

0.0086 is for a distance of 100 m from the source point (the closest distance plotted in the reference 

figure). This analysis includes the assumption that the wind is always blowing toward the receptor, 

which is favorable to claimants. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 72 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

B.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 73

B.2 Background............................................................................................................................ 73

B.3 General Approach.................................................................................................................. 74

B.4 Applications and Limitations................................................................................................... 74

B.5 Coworker Data Development ................................................................................................. 74

B.6 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................. 74

B.7 Coworker Annual Dose Summaries ....................................................................................... 75

B.8 External Dose Coworker Study Instructions, 1950 to 2010..................................................... 77

B.8.1 Data Sources.............................................................................................................. 77

B.8.2 General Comments .................................................................................................... 78

B.9 Instructions ............................................................................................................................ 78

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

B-1 Annual external deep doses................................................................................................... 75

B-2 Annual external shallow doses............................................................................................... 76

B-3 Periods and MDLs for imputation models............................................................................... 78
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 73 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

B.1 PURPOSE

This attachment provides information that allows dose reconstructors to base external doses on 

known site coworker data for workers who have no or limited monitoring data or for gaps in the 

dosimetry record. Please note, however, that if the unmonitored period is short and the record has 

monitoring results from before and after the gap, with no apparent change in work assignments, the 

dose reconstructor can use the average of the surrounding measurements for the gap period (see 

NIOSH 2007).

In cases where the monitoring records list a recorded “0,” dose reconstructors should assume KCP 

issued the dosimeter, processed it, and that the result was less than the dosimeter limit of detection 

(LOD). In cases in which the records show monitoring for occupational external exposures and one or 

more dosimeter exchange cycles are blank (or listed as a dash, slash, or hash mark), dose 

reconstructors should assume the absence of an entry indicates: 

• The worker was not issued a dosimeter in that exchange cycle, 

• The worker might have been issued a dosimeter, but it was not processed due to loss or 

damage, or

• That the results of processing were incomplete or suspect and no dose was assigned because 

of the absence of processing or an errant result.

B.2 BACKGROUND

The Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team has prepared a series of coworker data studies 

to permit dose reconstructors to complete certain cases for which external or internal monitoring data 

are unavailable or incomplete. Cases that do not have complete monitoring data could fall into one of 

several categories:

• The worker was unmonitored and, even by today’s standards, did not need to be monitored 

(e.g., a nonradiological worker).

• The worker was unmonitored but, by today’s standards, would have been monitored.

• The worker might have been monitored, but the data are not available to the dose 

reconstructor.

• Partial information is available, but it is insufficient to facilitate a dose reconstruction.

ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment, notes dose 

reconstructors can evaluate some cases without complete monitoring data based on assumptions and 

methodologies that do not involve coworker data (ORAUT 2011a). For example, the assignment of 

ambient external and internal doses based on information in the relevant site technical basis 

documents (TBDs) allows evaluation of many cases in the first category. 

KCP used a variety of film and TLD dosimetry systems (Section 6.0). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 74 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

B.3 GENERAL APPROACH

A dosimeter measures external dose over a given length of time (e.g., a month or quarter). The total 

of the doses from all measurements in a year is the annual dose. Many sites used a censoring level, 

usually referred to as the LOD, and reported the results as “less than” that value. For example, the 

reported dose for a given month might be “<0.050 rem.” These censored data are problematic for the 

development of coworker models. 

The previous approach to handling censored dosimeter readings (ORAUT 2011b) was to substitute 

one-half of the censoring level for the censored results and then calculate the empirical 50th and 95th 

percentiles of the dataset. In statistics, this substitution is referred to as an imputation. In general, the 

imputation of a constant value like LOD/2 is not recommended (Helsel 2012) because it biases 

parameter estimates high. ORAUT-RPRT-0071, External Dose Coworker Methodology (ORAUT 

2015b), outlines an alternative approach to analyzing the censored data that:

• Uses a lognormal probability model to generate a distribution of values to use for imputation 

rather than a constant one-half of the censoring level,

• Uses survival analysis techniques like those now in use for internal dose coworker modeling to 

estimate the parameters of a lognormal fit (i.e., the GM and GSD) to the data rather than using 

the empirical 50th and 95th percentile, and

• Uses multiple imputation to account for the uncertainty in the parameter estimates due to the 

imputation process.

B.4 APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Some KCP employees could have worked at one or more other major sites in the DOE complex 

during their employment histories. Therefore, dose reconstructors should use the data in this 

attachment with caution to ensure, for likely noncompensable cases, that unmonitored external doses 

from multiple site employments are overestimates. This typically requires the availability of the 

recorded doses or guidance in site documents that covers external coworker dosimetry data for all 

relevant sites.

The data in this document address penetrating deep dose and nonpenetrating shallow dose.

External onsite ambient dose should be applied as specified in the latest revision of ORAUT-PROC0060, Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites (ORAUT 2006b). 

B.5 COWORKER DATA DEVELOPMENT

KCP provided information for coworker analysis in a database entitled “KCP Rad Dosimetry Database 

XP1” (HFMT 2012) This analysis used the table “Worker Exposure History Table” from that database. 

B.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The analysis used the instructions in Section B.9 and ORAUT-RPRT-0071 (ORAUT 2015b) to 

analyze the data from the KCP table. ORAUT (2016b) contains the imputation model plots fit with 

lognormal regression on order statistics. Censored badge readings were imputed from these 

lognormal imputation distributions, summed to compute annual doses, and yearly lognormal fits were 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 75 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

made. After multiple imputations (K = 30), the parameters were averaged, resulting in the plots in 

ORAUT (2016c). For this analysis, a histogram analysis of the data for a year (or a period of years) 

determined the censoring levels for each year. The censoring level is a positive value in the “grey 

zone” between zero and the MDL values in Table B-3 below. 

B.7 COWORKER ANNUAL DOSE SUMMARIES

Tables B-1 and B-2 provide the results of the analysis for deep and shallow dose, respectively. The 

tables include the 95th percentile of the specified lognormal distribution, the number of workers in 

each year, and the censoring level (discussed above and in Section B.9). Dose reconstructors should 

use these data in the same manner as described in ORAUT-OTIB-0020 in relation to using either the 

GM (50th percentile) or the 95th-percentile value as a constant depending on work history (ORAUT 

2011b). Section 6.0 discusses energy ranges for these doses. 

Table B-1. Annual external deep doses (rem).

Year GM GSD 95th percentile

Number of 

workers

Censoring 

level

1950 0.009 21.47 1.346 46 0.01

1951 0.011 27.16 2.553 227 0.01

1952 0.019 9.61 0.802 231 0.01

1953 0.006 14.57 0.509 101 0.01

1954 0.002 36.07 0.696 65 0.01

1955 0.011 24.68 2.213 41 0.01

1956 0.130 3.71 1.119 26 0.01

1957 0.011 49.05 6.393 65 0.01

1958 0.001 24.82 0.262 301 0.01

1959 0.001 15.45 0.053 461 0.01

1960 0.001 16.10 0.059 1043 0.01

1961 0.002 20.96 0.322 946 0.01

1962 <0.001 12.32 0.027 700 0.01

1963 0.001 16.04 0.061 596 0.01

1964 <0.001 13.05 0.032 530 0.01

1965 <0.001 10.92 0.019 436 0.01

1966 <0.001 11.26 0.020 415 0.01

1967 <0.001 10.77 0.019 369 0.01

1968 <0.001 10.01 0.014 466 0.01

1969 <0.001 9.72 0.012 575 0.01

1970 <0.001 10.69 0.018 580 0.01

1971 <0.001 10.26 0.016 574 0.01

1972 0.001 15.90 0.120 195 0.01

1973 0.001 16.25 0.116 199 0.01

1974 0.002 19.72 0.252 169 0.01

1975 0.001 13.43 0.067 149 0.01

1976 0.002 14.92 0.130 126 0.01

1977 <0.001 12.35 0.027 123 0.01

1978 0.001 13.76 0.038 152 0.01

1979 <0.001 12.22 0.028 162 0.01

1980 0.001 12.74 0.035 185 0.01

1981 <0.001 13.02 0.032 210 0.01

1982 <0.001 12.50 0.028 209 0.01

1983 <0.001 10.68 0.019 227 0.01

1984 <0.001 11.85 0.024 216 0.01
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 76 of 78

ATTACHMENT B

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

Year GM GSD 95th percentile

Number of 

workers

Censoring 

level

1985 0.001 14.45 0.064 201 0.01

1986 0.001 13.15 0.036 194 0.01

1987 <0.001 11.45 0.023 196 0.01

1988 <0.001 11.76 0.022 186 0.01

1989 <0.001 10.98 0.020 233 0.01

1990 <0.001 11.29 0.021 216 0.01

1991 <0.001 10.67 0.018 193 0.01

1992 <0.001 9.72 0.013 169 0.01

1993 <0.001 9.12 0.012 113 0.01

1994 <0.001 9.83 0.015 55 0.01

1995 <0.001 11.08 0.022 96 0.01

1996 <0.001 10.07 0.015 104 0.01

1997 <0.001 9.44 0.014 123 0.01

1998 <0.001 9.65 0.013 101 0.01

1999 <0.001 10.50 0.015 93 0.01

2000 <0.001 4.78 0.006 84 0.001

2001 0.001 4.91 0.007 86 0.001

2002 0.001 5.43 0.009 78 0.001

2003 0.001 5.77 0.011 84 0.001

2004 0.001 5.17 0.008 99 0.001

2005 <0.001 4.51 0.005 104 0.001

2006 <0.001 5.07 0.006 102 0.001

2007 <0.001 4.52 0.005 91 0.001

2008 0.001 4.55 0.007 89 0.001

2009 <0.001 4.17 0.003 60 0.001

2010 <0.001 4.08 0.003 59 0.001

Table B-2. Annual external shallow doses (rem).

Year GM GSD 95th percentile

Number of 

workers

Censoring 

level

1950 0.010 19.10 1.227 46 0.01

1951 0.012 23.62 2.206 227 0.01

1952 0.020 9.34 0.777 231 0.01

1953 0.007 12.56 0.453 101 0.01

1954 0.003 28.74 0.670 65 0.01

1955 0.014 20.16 1.889 41 0.01

1956 0.130 3.71 1.119 26 0.01

1957 0.012 39.84 5.171 65 0.01

1958 0.002 19.92 0.314 301 0.01

1959 0.002 17.78 0.209 461 0.01

1960 0.002 22.65 0.408 1043 0.01

1961 0.005 20.62 0.676 946 0.01

1962 0.006 17.07 0.589 700 0.01

1963 0.001 17.54 0.149 596 0.01

1964 0.001 13.92 0.072 530 0.01

1965 0.001 10.07 0.031 436 0.01

1966 0.001 15.42 0.099 415 0.01

1967 0.001 10.65 0.036 369 0.01

1968 0.001 9.52 0.024 466 0.01

1969 0.000 8.51 0.016 575 0.01
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 77 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

Year GM GSD 95th percentile

Number of 

workers

Censoring 

level

1970 0.001 9.41 0.023 580 0.01

1971 0.001 9.00 0.020 574 0.01

1972 0.002 12.69 0.129 195 0.01

1973 0.002 21.95 0.400 199 0.01

1974 0.005 14.76 0.415 169 0.01

1975 0.002 13.68 0.146 149 0.01

1976 0.003 11.33 0.185 126 0.01

1977 0.001 10.40 0.031 123 0.01

1978 0.001 12.13 0.049 152 0.01

1979 0.001 10.21 0.034 162 0.01

1980 0.001 11.65 0.052 185 0.01

1981 0.001 12.21 0.056 210 0.01

1982 0.001 11.23 0.048 209 0.01

1983 0.001 10.14 0.030 227 0.01

1984 0.001 10.26 0.031 216 0.01

1985 0.001 12.03 0.069 201 0.01

1986 0.001 11.24 0.054 194 0.01

1987 0.001 9.45 0.027 196 0.01

1988 0.001 10.44 0.033 186 0.01

1989 0.001 10.09 0.030 233 0.01

1990 0.001 9.73 0.030 216 0.01

1991 0.001 9.29 0.023 193 0.01

1992 0.001 8.23 0.016 169 0.01

1993 0.001 8.78 0.019 113 0.01

1994 0.001 9.43 0.024 55 0.01

1995 0.001 9.66 0.026 96 0.01

1996 0.001 9.14 0.021 104 0.01

1997 0.001 9.00 0.022 123 0.01

1998 0.001 7.94 0.016 101 0.01

1999 0.001 9.37 0.026 93 0.01

2000 0.001 3.85 0.009 84 0.001

2001 0.001 4.29 0.011 86 0.001

2002 0.001 4.64 0.012 78 0.001

2003 0.001 4.45 0.012 84 0.001

2004 0.001 4.12 0.011 99 0.001

2005 0.001 4.13 0.011 104 0.001

2006 0.001 4.62 0.013 102 0.001

2007 0.001 4.37 0.012 91 0.001

2008 0.001 4.33 0.015 89 0.001

2009 0.001 4.24 0.008 60 0.001

2010 0.001 3.50 0.005 59 0.001

B.8 EXTERNAL DOSE COWORKER STUDY INSTRUCTIONS, 1950 TO 2010

B.8.1 Data Sources

The data are from the following fields in “Worker Exposure History Table” (HFMT 2012): 

• Year, 

• SSN, 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0031 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/06/2017 Page 78 of 78

ATTACHMENT B 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSE ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINE (continued)

• Begin Date, 

• End Date, 

• Deep (Rem), and

• Shallow (Rem). 

B.8.2 General Comments

• A blank cell means an individual was not monitored during between Begin Date and End Date.

• A cell containing zero means the individual was monitored but the results were below the 

MDL. In this case, use the MDL values from Table B-3 (derived from Table 6-3). 

• No correction factors are necessary for deep dose or shallow dose.

B.9 INSTRUCTIONS

The following data fields are required:

• The year in which the dosimeter was worn, 

• The Social Security Number for the individual who wore the dosimeter, 

• Begin Date and End Date to determine the year the dosimeter was worn, and

• The dosimeter deep and shallow dose quantities.

For this analysis, the censoring level for each year should be determined by a histogram analysis of 

the data for that year (or a period of years). The censoring level will be a positive value in the “grey 

zone” between zero and the MDL values in Table B-3. Tables B-1 and B-2 list the censoring levels for 

these analyses.

Table B-3. Periods and MDLs (mrem) for imputation models. 

Period Deep Shallow

1950–1972 40 40

1973–1982 30 30

1983-2003 10 10